All I’m asking is if this has been a problem in Ireland? You have given hypotheticals?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
All I’m asking is if this has been a problem in Ireland? You have given hypotheticals?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The trying to mix it with racism is utterly disgusting imo. Men telling rape victims or people with disabilities that have complained that they are bigoted, is also vileQuote:
Originally Posted by archie
How's it hypothetical. Most females polled don't want *****'s in the changing room. Females I know don't want it. You are asking for full on rapes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Father knows best though
Has this been a problem in Ireland?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How the hell would we get that information, it's utterly ridiculous and you know it. In the uk females don't want biological males in female spaces, that's all that matters. Or are you telling the females they are wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Trans women with beards? 😂😂😂Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I think you have mixed up drag artists with real trans women.
I'm really not, your laughing faces would be seen as quite bigoted by some nowadays. It's a common trend nowQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/this-transgender-woman-has-a-full-beard-and-she-couldnt-be-h
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.teenvogue.com/story/how-my-beard-affects-my-gender-identity-as-a-trans-femme/amp
https://unherd.com/2021/07/how-the-t...ooled-ireland/Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Uproar, really?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
The petition to remove her from limericks prison got to 1817 signatures.
So that’s a no then?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good piece from Johann Lamont on the dangers inherent in this bill. Would that more of the current Labour MSPs weren't so timid:
MSPs must not vote for a gender reform Bill they do not really support
We are being invited to believe that sexual predators have never thought to lie before and the safeguards proposed are risible
While the Court of Session ruling was disappointing, it made one thing crystal clear.
The Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which MSPs will vote on next week, poses a huge threat to single-sex spaces and would create a powerful new weapon which predatory men could exploit to harm women and girls.
For years SNP ministers have repeatedly, and shamefully, sought to dodge questions over whether Gender Recognition Certificates – to be handed out without hindrance if Nicola Sturgeon gets her way – change a person’s legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.
But Lady Haldane confirmed without any doubt that in the eyes of the law, a biological male with a GRC becomes legally female and gains significant new rights.
While we may not like that verdict, we should be grateful that we finally have legal certainty before MSPs vote on what I believe to be one of the most dangerous and misguided Bills in Holyrood’s history.
The so-called “safeguards” being proposed are utterly risible.Ministers claim signing a declaration stating that you identify as the opposite sex is a solemn step, with a fraudulent application punishable by up to two years in jail.
But this could not conceivably work.
If gender identity is based solely on how a person feels, how could a court possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a declaration had been made in bad faith?
We are being invited to believe that sexual predators have never thought to lie before.
But the lesson of my life is that male abusers will do the most extraordinary things to access vulnerable women and children. Even Ms Sturgeon accepts abusers may take advantage of this system.
So it is utterly sickening that vulnerable women and children are still to be viewed as collateral damage, sacrificed at the altar of gender ideology.
If a convicted rapist, post-conviction, can transition and get placed in a female jail, then all bets are off over how you protect women. And you certainly reveal no understanding of or empathy with traumatised women.
I often wonder how we got here. For most of the 21 years that I sat in parliament, these issues seemed uncontroversial.
I thought the mantra "a trans woman is a woman" was about being kind. Of course, men who wished to live their lives as women were to be treated with dignity and respect.
Then, without anyone really noticing, the narrative changed. Trans women were literally women. Men had become the opposite sex.
We never in our wildest moments considered that "being kind" would lead to male-bodied people in sports such as cycling and swimming competing against women and girls.
But the problem was that once you accept that literally "trans women are women", you've conceded the logic of all these other arguments.
It was only by chance that I became interested in the details of the Forensic Medical Services Bill, which was passed in my final months as an MSP.
The committee that examined the legislation had called for it to be amended so that a victim of sexual offences could request to be examined by a woman, to be defined in legislation by their sex, not gender.
The Scottish Government tried its best to pretend this recommendation didn't exist.
But I won an argument within my own party, tabling an amendment in line with the committee's recommendation.
I know Ms Sturgeon did not want to support it. But it led to a debate within the SNP group and to their credit, their MSPs made it clear they would not be whipped into supporting something they did not believe in.
In the end my amendment was passed overwhelmingly with SNP support.
I believe the same thing may be happening now, albeit on a larger scale, and that the same tipping point is being reached.
SNP MSPs, as well as many in the Labour Party, have real concerns over the self-identification system. I firmly believe that there is not a majority for it across the Parliament.
SNP rebels have been emboldened rather than cowed. Ash Regan, who bravely quit her ministerial post to vote against the legislation at stage one, has emerged with her political reputation greatly enhanced.
Within my own party, I do not believe there is majority support for the proposals among the membership nor the Holyrood group.
A principled Labour politician would look at this travesty of a Bill and refuse to vote for it on substance.
A cynical one would look at it and say: "Why are we giving Nicola Sturgeon cover and a way out of a huge political mess?"
Either way, you get to the same place.
Some people have presented the passage of this Bill as a foregone conclusion. I think there is still hope that our lawmakers will pause and reflect.
People like Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on women and girls, are raising grave concerns.
Supporters of self-ID can attempt to traduce old feminists like me or experts like Ms Alsalem as Right-wing bigots or being too stupid to realise we’re being used. But it’s not really credible, is it?
Parliamentarians have an obligation to ask themselves, will this legislation make life more or less safe for vulnerable women and children? Does it empower or disempower male predators?
These are serious questions to which the Scottish Government has given joke answers. And until we get answers that put the safety of women and girls first, MSPs should not be voting for this.
There’s also a question that I’ve been asking myself recently.
Can we be still confident that the people with the power to make the law will not vote for something that, in their hearts, they don't believe in, and risks making the most vulnerable in our society less safe?
In my more optimistic moments, I believe that we can be.
At least we've had a consultation here before any introduction. Imagine we hadn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
And that's the only indicator?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Your definition is full rape problem, women being unhappy with a decision no problem. Men should make more decisions for women, we know bestQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I just don't think it caused 'uproar'Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
How many people need to discuss it to cause uproar? A few journalists, or many a couple of interested groups.
I didn’t ask if there were people unhappy about it. I can find them. And if you get the right papers on board you can even create more people who will be outraged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I asked if there was evidence of problems with changing areas in Ireland since it’s introduction?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But your problem is a full on rape. You think it's a win saying see no rapeQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Your dismissing women's feelings and opinions. Have they got the right to say they don't want male genitals in their changing rooms, or people with male genitals in rape crisis centres, or people with disabilities being washed by people with male genitalia
You just bash on saying see no rape in Ireland so all of the above is mute, women listen eh
Where did I mention rape?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well that is the only quantifiable thing you will get from Ireland. What else are you looking for its utterly ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Here's the isue with what you are looking for. You want hard quantifiable evidence of people's behviours. This is really difficult to establish, but it is there. An example of this is around the energy crisis. By your approach the only indicator of distress would be disconections or maybe pre pay meters being installed. But behind that there is a whole group of people who don't turn on heating, retreat to one room, shower less and so on and so on. These behavioural changes are really difficult to capture over a short period and without detailed research. Similarly, I suspect women will just change behaviour; not go to the gym; avoid shops with certain changing room rules and so on. Is that really a victory?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I could cite the Primark protests here, triggered by this: https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2022...lk-in-on-woman Primark did change their policy. Was this woman a racist or did she have unevidenced fears?
That is one of the major concerns around this legislation - that many won't understand its implications until it becomes law, something Rowling is right to make headlines about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I'm unclear why you think the percentage of people affected by this legislation will be tiny. The topic may appear niche, but last week's Court of Session judicial review and the forthcoming legislation will affect us all. We're about to see the word 'sex' in Scotland lose its meaning and GRC certificates handed out with no diagnosis, checks or safeguards of any kind. Self identification is all that is required. Sturgeon's claim that her new gender laws do not grant anyone significant new rights simply does not hold water and I find it inconceivable that she's oblivious to the coach and horses she is riding through hard-fought women's rights.
As Sonia Sodha pointed out in the Guardian last week: "Sturgeon 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. The most likely outcome is that Sturgeon, a self-professed feminist and nationalist, will leave the door wide open for a Conservative government in Westminster to step in to protect Scottish women, by updating the Equality Act to clarify its sex-based protections for women apply only to those who are biologically female."
Her final sentence may prove very close to the mark - and who knows, perhaps that what Sturgeon has wanted all along.
Further back I put up a article from a paralysed woman who was petrified at the thought trans women would be able to give her intimate care. Not quantifiable, so not a problem I guess..Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Another hypothetical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
She's literally a real person, who is terrified because the rule change will mean she won't be able to refuse as it will be a woman doing it. Just because it doesn't effect you, you don't care if women aren't happy or there wishes are listened to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
You as a man are basically telling a disabled woman her fears are not valid and she just needs to get on with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
For the virtue signalling purist it is political. "Progressive" is the new camouflage vehicle for political intolerance.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
For some males it's misogyny, sadly.
For many males it is naively not realising it is simply their privilege that makes them think its not a problem. Maybe they don't have daughters or sisters or wives...but they all have mothers. Even if it was hypothetical that someone might abuse a disabled women or elderly it's the anxiety and vulnerability that is being dismissed. The vulnerable person's voice being dismissed.
My mum was in a care home. She needed full personal care. Had she got that from anyone other than a person of the same biological sex she would have refused personal care. Her dignity and comfort isnt hypothetical. If women feel safer with other women who are we to dismiss that?
Men telling woman that their fears and anxiety are not valid because the situation that you are anxious about hasn't happened is an argument that makes no sense. Have a look at the mental health thread on here, quite a few people suffer from anxiety and imagine telling them to basically get on with it and their fears are not valid because the thing they are anxious about is hypothetical and hasn't actually happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysGot2
There has been a bit of decent debate on here from both sides but as soon as I read "virtue signalling purist" I immediately stopped reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysGot2
Indeed. Working across various primary schools, I am very much in a minority as a male and whenever this legislation is raised in staff rooms there's a consensus that it's hard for men to fully appreciate just how valued protected spaces for women are. On the flip side I'm not aware of any regular female posters on this particular forum and it's interesting to see numerous posts along the lines of 'what's the worst that can happen?'.Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysGot2
If you read beyond that you'll find he makes a good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by neil7908
Lord McConnell calls for a pause to the legislation and a cross-party summit to address concerns.
Gender law could lure sex offenders to Scotland, claims former First Minister - Daily Record
I know that neither he nor Johann Lamont are MSPs, but in light of the strength of their opposition to the legislation I imagine Labour are torn on the issue.
Doesn’t the legislation have cross party support? Why would it then need a pause for a cross party summit?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was deliberate. The order and range of reasons for people responding the way they do. Unfortunately, some people don't want to listen to another viewpoint- these people DO exist. They are not the majority. But those who prevented women meeting to discuss their thoughts on issues connected to this debate were stifling debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
If people don't read beyond that first discussion point then I'm not offended but I'm also not surprised.
I’ve mainly avoided this one because i genuinely find some of it confusing and there’s a lot of it I don’t feel qualified to address as a male. So I make no comment about the issue itself. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
We don’t have a second chamber in Scotland, maybe pausing for breath and letting a cross party summit serve that purpose would not be a bad thing. If it’s good legislation then it will still be passed.
Well worth a read.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...onnell-3958190
Both sides of this debate can make good points and have genuine concerns. Then there is this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
An interesting read.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
It's a far more eloquent extension of my views on the subject. The debate has become so polarised and so dominated by sloganeering that the sensible compromises put forward in the editorial have become unpalatable to the extremes on both sides.
A pause for thought, further debate and additional independent advice would be the sensible move in Scotland right now. It's become such a toxic issue though, even if only among a minority, that there seems an insatiable desire just to get it done.
My thoughts exactly. The Observer editorial is excellent and everyone on both sides of this furore should take the time to read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
If a man self-identifies as a woman, and is subsequently convicted of a crime which would usually carry a custodial sentence for a man, what happens?
Do the courts treat him as a male and lock him up or as female and she gets a lesser sentence?
No idea. Do we have gender specific sentencing?Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Would be interesting to know if sex offenders been lured to anywhere else that has this legislation already in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Perfect example of how things get polarised. No voters favourite blogger claiming SNP voters hate women. [emoji849]Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Still if you think that helps your case.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Police Scotland have stated that their policy if a woman is raped by a man who self declares as a woman then the rape will be recorded as having been committed by a woman. Needless to say the flak this has attracted has seen the policy reviewed.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
Another absurdity is that if a woman who identifies as a man is raped and gets pregnant then her rights under the Abortion Act will be compromised.
I actually posted it without comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I think in general terms yes. The courts will usually not want to imprison females where possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I gather (from my local Labour MSP) that they'll be tabling some stronger amendments to the Bill, having become frustrated at being portrayed as the SG's willing stooges in getting this legislation through. I get the impression that privately the party is all over the place on this issue and that Johann Lamont is correct in asserting that a majority aren't in favour. Think tomorrow's debate ahead of the vote is expected to drag on for many hours.
Scot gov trying to whip so no ammendments, as that would risk a delay?
https://mobile.twitter.com/holyroodm...61008086405146
Sturgeon will rue the day she allowed Harvie and Slater a sniff of power I reckon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Even if they force it through, the UK govt has the power to intervene (and, I suspect, may well do so):
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64032916Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I see the MSPs Robison has written to asking then to drop their amendments are from all parties, including Michelle Thomson.
I've read plenty of good points on here from posters who I disagree with. Its an extremely complex issue with no easy answers and I'm genuinely a bit unsure what my own position is in all this.Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysGot2
But as soon as I read or see someone use words like virtue signalling, woke etc then I will save myself time and not proceed any further as from my experience, 99% of what follows is best ignored.
Thought I would tune in to Parliament TV to see the final debate on this, Parliament has been suspended though and it all looked like a bit of a farce. Points of order all over the place. Apparently over 150 amendments to be debated.
Do you reckon anyone in particular is to blame for the farce?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Looks like they all don't know what they are doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeRussell
As for 150 amendments, that suggests poor legislation.
Or opposition trying to derail it?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
I think it’s good that everyone is getting their say today in parliament. That’s why we elect them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There was an amendment just rejected about everyone getting a say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Maths clearly not his strongpoint or he might have realised that the 44% (ex Don't Knows) of SNP voters who disagreed the reforms "pose a safety risk to women" contain enough people (114) to more than cover the 28% (inc Don't Knows) of SNP voters who said it made them more likely to vote SNP (103).Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
So his statement "SNP voters say they’re MORE likely to vote for the SNP specifically because of a policy that they themselves think puts women in danger" can be (perhaps appositely) summed up in one word - bollocks.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...c46fdda71a.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by James310
There is your reason right there. Not debating the issues, just trying to sabotage democracy. I guess once you start down that road it’s easy to keep going.[emoji6]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Away from the actual issue and going off on a political tangent for a second, it seems the Tories are desperate to try and force the resignation (or not) of Kate Forbes.
Aiui, if it goes to January, she can't avoid the vote by being on maternity leave.Quote:
Philip Sim @BBCPhilipSim
Row about process continues: almost descending into a sort of filibuster as Conservative MSPs rise to request a range of different ministerial statements tomorrow instead of the scheduled gender reform debate, presumably all with the same result of pushing it into January
I thought you would be outraged that an amendment to allow everyone to have a say was rejected. Democracy and all that stuff. 😉Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
There is the introduction of a proxy vote system at the start of next year.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
You mean it’s not about women’s rights? Shocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course that's one side of the coin, the other side is the SNP are railroading this through before Xmas to avoid having to sack Kate Forbes. But all about women's rights and not having to sack a front bench minister. Shocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Even a quick listen shows the legislation is flawed. Basic definitions are missing.
Yes, the whole thing is rushed right enough.[emoji849] Isn’t this one of the most consulted bits of legislation brought before Holyrood? Think the rushed accusation just doesn’t stack up against the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A quick listen would show you the legislation itself is flawed, the process has been consulted on but the parliamentary process can be counted in single digits in terms of the number of weeks. There was an emergency session last night and they are saying the debate could last until midnight tonight, so the facts do stack up this is being rushed through Parliament. So much for a family friendly Parliament having debates going on until midnight, if I remember correctly there were a number of MSPs standing down as they struggled to fit the work around family and caring responsibility. Having emergency sessions and debates at midnight doesn't sound like a Bill that's had the time it needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Opposition is split between the principled and those gleefully seeking an anti-Indy wedge issue. Pretty clear we're getting both on this thread as well as in the parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Kenny Gibson talking well there is not something I thought I would ever say.
You think emergency evidence sessions with the UN the night before the vote and debates going on until midnight is the sign of a Bill going through normal parliamentary process?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Clearly quite a few MSPs from all parties have concerns about allowing 16 and 17 year olds to get a GRC and potentially starting transition. Under the UN anyone under 18 is a child so I understand the concerns.
As already discussed on here the controversy around the consultation process was how heavily weighted it was in favour of government-funded lobby groups who are passionately in favour of these reforms, while IIRC feminist groups who oppose the legislation were denied a voice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
That might be the case at Holyrood where the Tories (who have nevertheless allowed a free vote I think?) will be keen to upset the applecart, but I think it would be unfair to suggest that the majority of opposition to this legislation is anything but heartfelt. I remain baffled by Sturgeon's intransigence on an issue which will impact so significantly on women's rights, while any parent should be apprehensive about its potential impact on children as young as 16. Sturgeon's personal life is obviously hers alone but I do sometimes wonder if she might be a little less inflexible on this had she had children of her own.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
No amount of suggested amendments will derail this bill because a majority of Labour MSPs will help it pass. However, I think the real battle lines will be drawn only after it passes into law. Now is the time for sensible compromise on a piece of legislation which in parts is simply wrong. The compromises suggested in the Observer editorial posted a couple of days ago are very much in line with what I feel is required.
I think this is an issue that doesn't really split down constitutional lines. Tories opposed, Lab and SNP ostensibly for , but fissures in the parties about the issue. Greens totally for and, I think, the Lib Dems are. That's not to say that parties don't see political opportunities. But is that so surprising? Fundamentally, the legislation is a mess, starting with the definitional issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
It's time for SNP MSP's to take a principled stand and vote against this bill. Sturgeon and Murrell need a rocket right up them, they're so utterly entrenched that they think they are untouchable. It will be a huge mistake to pass this bill and will count against them in the future.
Personally I think it will pass and then be forgotten about. There will be the odd story hear and there regarding some prisoner changing gender etc much the same as in Ireland but that will be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Unless you think Scottish people are significantly different from Irish then there is no reason to suspect there will be a different outcome from their experience. In 7 years it’s barely caused a ripple in Irish society. It will be the same here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Scotsmen do tend to wear skirts more than their Irish counterparts, maybe that explains their concern. :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
But your definition of a problem is something quantifiable like rape. Imo opinion that's shocking. Females who don't want male bodied care won't be in any statistic, but don't matter to you. Women who don't want a ***** next to them when changing at the gym don't matter to you, also will be no statistics for this ect ect. Women's opinions and fears don't matter anymoreQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Surely Irish women would be kicking up about this if it was happening? Is it happening in Ireland?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
sorry if I’ve missed this, what’s the situation with Kate Forbes? Why would she be sacked/resign?
Who is going to run an unquantifiable article. What I do know is here in Scotland a woman with no feeling bellow her neck, says her life will be in terror knowing a biological male will now be able to touch her. You basically said her fears and opinions are null. Women's opinions are being quietened. Men who it won't affect telling them their opinions and fears don't matter is poorQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Snp are whipping it rather than giving mps a free voteQuote:
Originally Posted by McD
Because if she votes on this according to her principles she will have to resign. Principles tend to get parked though when ministerial salaries are on the line. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by McD
Sex offenders rights looked after. Gallery has to be cleared as women shout shame on yous
Russell Findlays amendment to deny sex offenders a GRC is defeated 59 votes to 64
I'm not sure the Irish situation is directly comparable and it's certainly not true that the reforms there have caused barely a ripple. As Ash Regan pointed out last week the legislation there (and I think in Norway) was kind of piggy-backed through on the back of more popular measures (eg marriage law reform) with little in the way of public debate. She also alluded to recent polling in Ireland which shows less than 20% public support for the measures implemented. I note also that the Catholic Church have today opposed the Scottish government legislation, citing dissatisfaction with the impact it has had on women's rights in Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
And this is most certainly about women's rights as much as women's safety. Even today I think it's true to say that women as a sex are discriminated against in society and this legislation will make 'women' into a kind of mixed-sex category - something that will put barriers in place when it comes to furthering the cause of women's rights. It will also make it harder for women to access female-only services and spaces, including hospital wards and intimate care as providers will be unable to grant such requests. That has got to be wrong surely - especially as trans people already have the right to access gender-neutral spaces and specialist services. It's removing women's rights to privacy and dignity - not to mention removal of safeguarding - and it can't surely have come as a surprise to Sturgeon to see that public opposition to such measures is over 60%. Shrugging this off by simply saying it seems to have been OK in Ireland doesn't really cut it when it comes to addressing such valid concerns for women (concerns that men don't have to deal with).
As a male this has no direct impact on me. However although I respect trans rights, I also respect woman’s rights and it strikes me that you cannot meet both without one or other being impacted.
I canvassed the opinion of my wife and daughter who had no reason to object which surprised me.
I do still feel the current approach is wrong and some of the areas of concern could be tightened up to try and strike a balance.
‘Shame on you’: Protesters rage as MSPs vote down gender reform amendment (msn.com)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The Catholic Church... women's rights... 😂😂😂Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
She’s a minister in scotgov so would be expected to resign if she voted against a govt policy. She’s also a wee free.Quote:
Originally Posted by McD
Women threatened with arrest if they don't leave the public gallery.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Although begs the question why would you allow convicted sex offenders the ability to change gender? Because they are genuinely nice people underneath it all and are just confused?
Yes, we should cut their bloody baws off……wait….hang on..Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
[emoji23]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You love an emoji when it's actually a serious matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
No, but should we allow them to change gender so easily as filling in a form and self declaring they are now a woman? I assume you think yes, why?
A not insignificant body of opinion in Ireland, but irrespective of anyone's opinion of them that's not my point. It just underlines that the Irish example isn't really some glowing example of legislation warmly embraced. It's what folk actually think of what's being introduced that matters, not simply letting it roll over them because it has 'worked' elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by neil7908
I think they are pretty much ignored in Ireland these days as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So the Parliament has voted to protect the rights of sex offenders over women. Is that funny?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Don’t think there are any votes until tomorrow?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm similar. Living in a country where you regularly have mixed toilets, showers and saunas as well as Doctors and Nurses of both sex and probably all variants along the gender/sex spectrum, it's difficult for me to understand what all the fuss is about. I think the likelihood of some perve getting a sex change or identifying as a woman just to oggle at naked women is very unlikely and what's to stop them just doing it anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol
It just all feels so Victorian.
Eh? They are voting on amendments about every 10 minutes now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I can ask again, why do you think the rights of sex offenders should be prioritised over the rights of women? Is it funny?