Two Committee sessions and a rush to stage 3 feels tight. That, coupled with widespread controversy, might suggest a more considered approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Printable View
Two Committee sessions and a rush to stage 3 feels tight. That, coupled with widespread controversy, might suggest a more considered approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
The process began in December 2019, 3 years ago, pre pandemic. That doesn't seem rushed to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Political chatter on twitter suggests change to rules in the Parliament to allow proxy voting come in 4 January. Suggestion that Kate Forbes would vote against legislation, so FM would have to sack her. Quick stage 3 avoids this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
If that's the case then the fear of losing more ministers would certainly explain the determination to squeeze this in before Christmas. That, plus the fact Sturgeon won't want the issue dogging her 'special party conference' in the new year.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
https://www.parliament.scot/about/news/news-listing/holyrood-committee-call-for-introduction-of-proxy-votingQuote:
Originally Posted by archie
I assume you mean that which is not chatter but a proposal.
Passed unanimously, apparently!
Chatter reference speculating re Kate Forbes position. Sorry if not clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
I'm surprised that we didn't have this already.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Do you know if we have pairing, as they do in Westminster?
Get on with the day job... No that fast. 😂Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Good question. I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Given that our system is less binary than WM, maybe less of a need. But it would still be helpful IMOQuote:
Originally Posted by archie
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63909309
UK govt may challenge the legislation.
Interesting position for the UK to take. Are they going to stop recognising people from Ireland as well or is it only Scotland? Because they already accept documents from Ireland which already has the laws that Scotland is introducing.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://adulthumanfemale.info/
Interesting and informative documentary which was due to be screened at Edinburgh University but the university have now banned it.
There is one opinion allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
By the university or the documentary?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
It's the UCU that are calling for it to be blocked, not the University.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
You're right, the Evening News headline was misleading.
UCU Edinburgh on Twitter: "It is our branch policy to demand that @EdinburghUni neither host nor facilitate meetings which contain content which is transphobic, biphobic, homophobic or otherwise detrimental to the safety and wellbeing of LGBT+ staff." / Twitter
Still highly debatable whether the documentary is in any way transphobic though.
So it's not been banned then?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Great explanation of why women are women and why male appropriation of female gender identity is so dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
If you’re in doubt , watch this.
Thanks for posting this, it articulates well importance of the reality of biological sex to be acknowledged for women's sex based rights, I tried to find it on YouTube but its not there, any idea if it's on any other platform?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Hopefully not.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
There are some details about where you can watch it here:Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
realitymatters (@AHFdoco) / Twitter
Some people think that Nichola Sturgeon's gender recognition certificate or gender self-ID is fine because it's only about being kind to the small amount of people who have the mental health condition gender dysphoria. While feminist's argue that in the real world gender self-ID will be exploited by predatory men and pedophiles, who are normally just straight men who see a loop in the law and exploit it to gain access to woman only spaces, making it a woman's safety and child protection issue.
Gender self-ID is not good for trans people because they are going to be tarred with the same brush when things like this happen a 25 year old male pedophile who identifies as a woman and got a 14 year old girl pregnant. This is what happens when trans rights meets reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uke_KcGUxOs
Switched off as soon as I saw who was 'reporting'Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
The issues raised in that clip highlight just how absurd the tiptoeing around this issue has become. It would be almost laughable if the consequences in this case hadn't been so devastating.Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Wow - what a move from JK Rowling https://suzannemoore.substack.com/p/...ith-jk-rowling
A horrible source of news but it's an even more horrible story. I wonder what pro GRA activists have to say about this kind of thing? Or is it a case of just brushing it under the carpet, like you so clearly did previously when people posted about the deviant who abused a child and was accommodated at a woman only hostel in Fife?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
"This is Beira’s Place.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
It is a new support and advocacy service for women who have experienced sexual violence, it has been funded by J.K. Rowling, and it opens today. It has been set up to meet an unmet need from female survivors for a women-only service, as there is not one currently available in the area.
There is a slight nervousness. How have they kept this all quiet? But they have pulled it off! They are opening today. Anything with Rowling’s name attached is bound to attract attention. The optics of anyone targeting a rape crisis centre would look bad but such is the situation in Scotland that there have been protestors screaming at women going into parliament to give harrowing testimony about their experiences.
Edinburgh’s one Rape Crisis is currently already over subscribed and somewhat controversial. Its stance that survivors may need to be re-educated about trans rights as part of recovering from trauma does not suit many of its users. The idea that survivors who have “unacceptable beliefs” should have their prejudices challenged, begs the question of who the service is for.
This pushing of a political view onto a woman at a time of profound trauma and crisis does not feel appropriate? Is it ethical? Professional? Many survivors do not feel comfortable about all this and repeatedly ask to be cared for by women. And by women only. Some may even refuse this service as a result"
It is a horrible story, here it is on BBC . It doesn't seem right to me to immediately jump on it being because they are trans, or as I assume you are suggesting, faking being trans. How many stories of transwoman lives happy, kind life would you need to read until the term transwoman isn't a red flag?Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
There's horrible people out there and they take all forms.
I totally support people's right to transition and I'm very comfortable with the concept, with some provisos around what the term transition means in terms of accessing female only protected spacesQuote:
Originally Posted by KWJ
I'm not really understanding your point when you say this "How many stories of transwoman lives happy, kind life would you need to read until the term transwoman isn't a red flag? ?
It read to me that you were sharing the story as if to say See what "transwoman" do!. Good to read that's not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
It's extraordinary that these are issues women who have suffered in this way should even have to be considering.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
This is a phenomenal move from JKR. Hats off to her. Wonder what 'real feminist' Sturgeon makes of it.
It's absolutely shocking that it takes someone willing to bankroll a service in order to unequivocally support female victims of sexual harm in Edinburgh. The Edinburgh Rape Crisis centre has been very deliberately politicised through the appointment of their CEO. It's a ****ing tragedy that a pioneering service that was once at the forefront of supporting women should have become a barrier to offering the support of women in a crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
JK Rowling's magnanimous gesture is so welcomed. I'm not a fan of her books or of her views on independence, but she has shown remarkable courage and commitment by continuing to speak out against the madness of the current GRA proposals. Total respect to her for standing up for women's rights and resisting the ignorant cult following fashionistas that have indicated their displeasure in the media.
Ban alleged rapists changing gender during trial, SNP MSP Michelle Thomson urges Sturgeon | Scotland | The Times
Don't imagine Sturgeon will look too favourably on Thomson working with the Tories on this proposed amendment.
Seems like a good way to remain in your echo chamber.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Trans charity announce they will be releasing scientific data this week that shows being trans is a biological condition. They are flooded with hundreds of replies from trans people saying don't release this. It will stop self identification and effect people who don't pass this 'test'
Probably agree, sounds a bit like the search for the gay gene
https://mobile.twitter.com/TransLuce...75586745991172
Probably not for this thread, but it's interesting that Beira's Place supports the Nordic Model for sex workers. By doing so, they are positioning themselves directly in conflict with just about every SW-led organisation in the World.
I also wonder whether they will be open to supporting trans victims of sexual violence.
Don't snp favour a similar style to the nordic model, personally think its backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
And isn't beira place for biological females only, so not for biological men?
The SNP voted for the NM at their conference a few years ago. I don't think it's been fully adopted yet, as there were so few people who actually voted. Ash Regan was pushing for it before she resigned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
On the second point, does that mean trans men could use the service 🤔?
You'd assume so but maybe they don't want people with high levels of testosterone there. That's a presumption though, I'd look at their website?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I think your final question exposes the heart of the issue. My concern with the draft legislation is the vagueness of the definitions. I think people view differently someone who has fully transitioned compared to someone who, say, identifies as a woman but is a man.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
And tomorrow will be significant https://twitter.com/DSanderson_85/st...73566875127808
"Our service is open to women only, aged 16 and over and who live in the Lothians (East Lothian, Midlothian/Edinburgh City, and West Lothian). The centre is women only and all staff are women[1].Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
At Beira’s Place we offer face to face support to survivors of any form of sexual violence, abuse and sexual exploitation, no matter when this has happened in their lives. Support appointments last up to one hour and are usually weekly. If weekly appointments are difficult (for example, for shift workers), this can be changed to suit the woman and her support worker. Some evening appointments will be available"
It's a service for women only, but I suspect you already know this.
Why would a man, trans or whatever want to go there? That seems like a strange question. Do you mean someone with a vulva who self identifies as a man and has been the victim of sexual violence?
By trans man, I mean someone who has fully transitioned from being a woman to being a man.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
I thought it a reasonable question. Much is made of the definition of a woman, and I was genuinely interested.
Someone who has fully transitioned has made a significant life changing commitment. Someone who sits in their bedroom for 3 months and now declares they are a woman by filling in an online form has not. But this bill I believe treats them equally?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
You wouldn't need to sit in your bedroom for three months, or indeed do anything to prove you've been living in your a acquired gender as under the new legislation no evidence, medical or otherwise, will be required.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
If they have fully transitioned then they are a man. I have a family member who has done exactly this. He has a beard and a boaby, he's a bloke and if he ever (god forbid) needed a service for support then an all female service wouldn't be appropriate (however, I shall ask his view on that question).Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I had assumed your question was rhetorical and you were coming at it from another angle, apologies.
Ta.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
I suppose my question was related to the notion expressed by some GC's that "trans women are not real women" ie they are men. The corollary of that is "trans men are not real men" ie they are women.
For me, your relative is very definitely a man, but you can see that might not be everyone's view.
edit..... Twitter is now very much alive with that very question...... :cb
I recognise that this is published by campaigners, but the issues raised highlight where well meaning but ill-considered legislation comes into force https://reduxx.info/men-are-men-norw...nder-comments/
SG win case.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
A JUDGE has ruled that transgender women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) can legally be defined as women when it comes to legislation that aims to ensure gender balance on public boards.
In her judgment on the second judicial review of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act Lady Haldane said:
“The meaning of sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act, 'sex' is not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex."
Last year, campaign group For Women Scotland took the Scottish Government to court over its definition of “women” in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.
The bill’s intention is to ensure that non-executive members on public boards are made up of at least 50% women.
Ministers had argued that people who were living as a woman or had gone through or intended to undertake the process of gender recognition could be defined as women within the legislation.
However, For Women Scotland argued that this did not accord to the separate definitions of women and transgender woman in the Equality Act 2010 and expressed fears about its wider implications for single-sex spaces.
The campaign group lost the initial judicial review of the bill in 2021 but were then successful upon appeal.
The Scottish Government then revised the legislation, which now states that the definition of “woman” is defined by the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
The guidance states: “Where a full gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person that their acquired gender is female, the person’s sex is that of a woman, and where a full gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person that their acquired gender is male, the person’s sex becomes that of a man.”
In practice, this means that transgender women with a gender recognition certificate would be considered women under the bill.
But For Women Scotland were not happy with the revision and called for a second judicial review, the results of which Lady Haldane revealed today.
Lady Haldane's judgment states that while the Equality Act 2010 protects a person's rights based on their sex, the definition of "sex" is not entirely restricted to a person's biological birth sex.
Indeed, she concludes that the ability of a Gender Recognition Certificate to change someone's legal sex "does not offend against, or give rise to any conflict with, legislation where it is clear that 'sex' means biological sex."
In court last month their lawyer, Aidan O’Neill KC, argued that allowing transgender people to change their legal sex with regards to the Equality Act would “run a coach and horses through the preservation of safe spaces for women and single-sex provision for women under the Equality Act".
During debates in the Scottish Parliament regarding the reform of gender recognition in Scotland – which is set to be voted on by MSPs on next week – the Scottish Government has repeatedly argued that making it easier for trans people to obtain a GRC will not impact the protections enshrined for women in the Equality Act 2010, including those regarding single-sex spaces
But For Women Scotland stated that MSPs were voting on the gender reform legislation “blind” because it would come before the ruling on the judicial review, which was not expected to come until after MSPs had cast their final votes on the legislation on December 21.
Lady Haldane's judgment also made clear that it referred only the legislative competence of the Scottish Government in this specific case and should be considered a ruling on the broader rights of transgender people.
So MSPs will vote in the clear knowledge of the implications of what they are voing for.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Correct. All parties MSP'sQuote:
Originally Posted by archie
It baffles me that even with that knowledge a majority of MSPs look set to vote for legislation that (to focus onQuote:
Originally Posted by archie
what was being addressed in the judicial review) will enable a man to change not just their gender but their sex on request.
On that basis how on earth can Sturgeon maintain that the new legislation will not confer significant new rights on anyone?
You do realise that it has cross party support?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Yes, bewildering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
So will you have a moan about all the other parties?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
A thread from a paralysed woman who wants biologically female only care
https://mobile.twitter.com/hen10free...22204467351556
I've added my name to a letter sent by colleagues in education to MSPs of all parties expressing concern about the level of naivety being shown in failing to recognise the obvious dangers inherent in this legislation. We've focused primarily, however, on the fact it will enable those as young as 16 to change their legal sex rather than the threat to women's safety (which is what tends to command the headlines).Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Students block the screening of adult human female. Joanna Cherry says we have a neo fascist climate, but isn't it her party pushing this more than any other
https://mobile.twitter.com/joannacch...03707998167040
Isn’t there two competing free speech arguments here? Aren’t the people protesting the screening exercising their right to protest? I’m not really on one side or the other but JC saying ‘is this what my country has become’ has me thinking I hope so. Two competing ideas out protesting each others views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But they aren't just protesting outside peacefully, they are preventing it being shown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I'm rarely remotely aligned to Cherry's political views, but she's never anything than spot-on regarding this issue.
They never challenged the ideas in the film by using their free speech they just censored it by not allowing people to watch it. Not sure that's the country you want Scotland to become?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Men telling women what they can and cannot do. Using physical force to tell women what they can watch and not watch. How very progressive.
I've just watched some footage on Twitter, disgraceful.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The film is freely available on YouTube.
https://twitter.com/PeakeCondition/status/1603305537688535043?t=8kKvHh_ormqqN9KP-34gmg&s=19
I'm not sure if there was due to be a post screening Q&A or debate, but anyone can watch the film.
https://archive.ph/jEcWm
About two thirds of Scots are opposed to the central pillars of Nicola Sturgeon’s gender reform policy, according to a new poll.
That's not the point though is it? Those who wanted to watch the screening at Edinburgh University were prevented from doing so by what appears to be a small number of folk who think their viewpoint entitles them to prevent opposing views being heard. 'Safety could not be guaranteed,' according to the university. Ridiculous - as is the statement from the university's Pride society spokesman claiming that a dozen protestors represent the views of all students.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
University of Edinburgh film screening cancelled due to protest - BBC News
Nobody has been prevented from viewing the film if it is freely available on YouTube.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Ridiculous. A screening and discussion was stopped by people who disagreed with someone else's opinion. I bet the film has more viewings due to the publicity mindQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
It's the Life of Brian/Jesus Christ Superstar effect. Those films got huge boosts in popularity because some people didn't see them and still objected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The cynic in me thinks that the makers are delighted at the controversy. :cb
I'm currently watching it, and have a lot of mixed feelings about it.... anything that Julie Bindel says has me reaching for sharp objects :greengrin..... but it's a view that is entitled to be heard.
Doesn't surprise me. Surprised it's not even more actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
What's behind your view on Julie Bindel?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I did ask if it was just the film or followed by a Q&A but there was no reply. So that was cancelled but anyone who is interested can still watch the film, CWG being someone who is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Her views on female sex work.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I guess she's opposed to it?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
She's opposed to men with testicles.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
That may be my prejudices showing.
:greengrin
I thought it was women with testicles...Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
BBC report suggests it was to be followed by a panel discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
I think it's probably just testicles then.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I think its telling that the easiest references we can make to the people protesting this film are to people protesting blasphemous films.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Different day, different UN opinion.
BBC News - UN chief backs Scottish government's gender recognition reforms
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63993415
In many ways this sums up the issue. The UN gender person all for it. The violence against women and girls person is opposed!Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Bindel has been researching and campaigning against prostitution since the 1970s and has written regularly about it since 1998.[39][40] While working at Leeds Metropolitan University in the 1990s, she coordinated the Kerb Crawlers Re-education Programme, a John school in the city.[39] An abolitionist, she argues strongly against efforts to decriminalise the sex trade as part of promoting "sex workers' rights".[41] Her position is that it is "inherently abusive, and a cause and a consequence of women's inequality ... a one-sided exploitative exchange rooted in male power".[42] For her book The Pimping of Prostitution: Abolishing the Sex Work Myth (2017), she interviewed 250 people in nearly 40 countries, visited brothels, and spoke to prostitutes, pimps and the police.[25]Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
She has been commissioned several times to write reports about the sex trade for charities and local authorities. While working for the Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit at London Metropolitan University, she co-authored a report in 2003 on prostitution in Australia, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Sweden.[43] In 2004, she produced a report for Glasgow City Council on lap dancing in the UK.[27] In 2008, she co-wrote (with Helen Atkins) Big Brothel, a report commissioned by the POPPY Project, which examined 921 brothels in London's 33 boroughs.[44] They wrote that 85 percent of the brothels were in residential areas—nearly two-thirds in apartments and one-fifth in houses: "Wherever you are in the city, the likelihood is that buying and selling women is going on under your nose."[45]
Bindel and Atkins recruited male acquaintances to telephone the brothels for them, asking what was on offer. They telephoned only the ones advertised in local newspapers; Bindel estimated that the brothels made £86M to £209.5M a year as a result of this advertising.[45] Penetrative sex was available from £15 to £250, with an average price of £62, and two percent of the brothels offered unprotected penetrative sex for an extra £10 to £200.[44] Many of the women were from Southern or Eastern Europe and Asia.[46] One brothel offered what they said was "a Greek girl who is very, very young".[45] Bindel wrote about the findings in her Guardian column:
When Frank rang a brothel in Enfield, he could hear a baby crying in the background. When Alan called one in Southwark, he could make out the sound of a child asking for his tea. And when Mick called another to inquire about their services, he was told that he could have a "dirty Oriental bitch who will do stag nights, anal, and the rest."[45]
The Big Brothel report was criticised by 27 academics and other researchers involved in research into prostitution, who complained that the study had been conducted without ethical approval or acknowledgement of existing sources, and had been co-written by a researcher with anti-prostitution views.[47] The POPPY Project responded that the report was one they had produced independently, that they were not an academic institution, and that it was important to provide a counterbalance to the positive focus on the sex industry found in the media.[48]
Since Ireland has had this legislation for a few years now, are there any specific problems they are having with it? Not hypotheticals which seems to be all we hear in the debate in Scotland but actual problems they are experiencing?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quick search throws up these:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/to...omen-prisoners
https://gript.ie/the-editors-barbie-...cognition-act/
First article appears to outline the solutions the Irish have found to the problem. Extra cost for the prison service right enough but it’s doable. And it’s one case in 7 years since it became law?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Has there been any cases where it has resulted in a woman being endangered? I’m not saying it couldn’t, just that it doesn’t really seem to be happening?
Men don’t really seem to need an excuse to endanger woman. They have been doing it for thousands of years without going to the bother of getting a certificate first. I would think if a male wanted access to women, then dressing up as one would reduce the likelihood of that? In fact, I bet most trans people would say that being trans reduces access to people full stop.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Barbie Kardashian case has caused uproar in Ireland. I guess the issue is how much risk is society prepared to take by putting people like them in a female prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
That’s is complete nonsense. I couldn’t say for sure but I’m sure opposition to the poll tax was higher than 60%? Also, people cared about the poll tax. Most people in Scotland only have minimal awareness this is even happening. And the percentage of people directly affected by it is tiny. To compare it with the poll tax is a joke and make Rowling look foolish.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m sure it has but the situation is managed by the prisoner never being allowed to be alone with another prisoner. So the situation is being managed. We can’t make law based on how much outrage the press can generate.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But we can make laws with reference to womens safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I know, that’s why I was asking if the law had endangered any women in Ireland in the 7 years it had been law there?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OK - you either think the risk is acceptable or you don't. My issue with the legislation is that the definition of trans is so broad to be effectively meaningless. That make makes for poor policy and poor enforcement potential. On an anecdotal point, speaking to women in the family, who are actually very supportive to the general issue and also very liberal, they don't want to share facilities like a changing room with a biologically intact male. Why aren't they allowed a voice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Former SNP minister Ash Regan: I had to vote with my conscience and resign over gender reform bill | Scotland | The Times
Hard to imagine Regan returning to the front bench. Wouldn't be surprised if she left the SNP altogether.
As I've said before, my own concerns around this bill extend beyond the headline stories around women's safety, concerning as those are. I cannot understand why Sturgeon remains so blinkered to the dangers inherent in allowing children as young as 16 to change their legal sex, especially bearing in mind how discredited the Mermaids charity and their insistence that gender dysphoria is always an inidicator of a fixed trans identity have become. She has ignored the findings of an English senior paediatrician (Hilary Cass) who has emphasised how in many cases gender dysphoria is transient for all sorts of reasons (puberty, childhood trauma, autism, coming to terms with same sex attraction etc) and whose review has shaped a case by case approach by NHS England. As far as I can see, Sturgeon's refusal to acknowledge the Cass review is based on the implausible view that it doesn't apply to Scottish children.
One thing nobody is being denied is a voice. There has been a long consultation process on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Again, rather than anecdotes, is there any evidence of problems in changing rooms in Ireland? Are women avoiding gyms? Have they stopped going to pubs in case a trans woman is in the toilets?
People’s fears can be very irrational. Doesn’t mean they are not real but we can’t make law based on them. In America when they started mixing the schools there was a massive amount of fear in the white community about the dangers this would bring. Should those fears have been taken into account? I would say no.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So in summary:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
- you had your chance in the consultation
- fears are irrational
- Concerns are akin to racism.
Is that it?
In my defence, I did ask if there was any real evidence from a neighbouring country who have had this policy for 7 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Does it need to be a full rapeQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
What about women not wanting to see a cock in their changing room. You can hit out with the nonsense cliche that this changes nothing in the law there but we all now that's pish. There will be no way to say if someone is trans they will literally be a women, even though the vast majority keep their *****.
Maybe I'm different as I have daughters who are very Liberal politically, but simply don't want *****'s near them when they are naked in the gym or any female only.
Many trans women now chose to have beards, that could be scary to see in the toilets for a rape victim.
It's downright misogyny men telling women what is right and wrong