The amendment to protect women was defeated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Printable View
The amendment to protect women was defeated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Is that what it was called?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/s...8L1KctnVcE8kLg
Sounds like it’s had cross party support.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Just sharing info.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Very tight on some of the main proposals. Tighter than I expected and it would have been interesting to see how many more SNP MSPs went against the party had they not been whipped. Poor not to have allowed a free vote on an issue like this which transcends party politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
That's poor to see the amendment re sex offenders narrowly voted down. Unclear what the Lib Dems feel they have to gain by aligning with the government on that one.
Again, missing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Maybe they just think it's right :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Disabled woman choosing not to have intimate care by biological males, rape victims having support of only biological females, domestic or sexual abuse victims having biological female only shelters. These aren't Victorian or frivolous. Just because they don't affect you or many men saying what should happen, doesn't make it less serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
BBC saying the debate could go on until 0230, anyone still think it's not being rushed through Parliament....even at the height of Covid which was the biggest crisis in our lifetime Parliament never sat like this.
It reminds me of Named Person legislation, eventually found to be illegal and scrapped at a cost of millions.
Didn't we have people with similar concerns regarding black people 40-50 years ago? If someone is qualified to do a job then racial, sexual or religious prejudice shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Like I said, I'm still on the fence with this one but as always education will be the key.
No we really didn't. Education is the key? Education for whom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
For a woman to request (for example) that they have a cervical smear test carried out by a female doctor bears no relation to discriminating against a doctor on racial or religious grounds. For any woman that's a wholly reasonable request. For a woman who has suffered abuse at the hands of a man it's unthinkable that they should have to submit to such an intimate examination by a biological male. That's just one example of the fundamental changes women will have to accept once this significantly flawed legislation is passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Judging by some of the indifferent responses on here (not specifically yours I should add), I increasingly think the UN rapporteur who last night told Holyrood that policymakers with no direct experience of male on female violence cannot grasp the fear some women feel simply sharing a room with men was right.
Education that not all trans people are sex monsters just like not all black people are criminals or all gay people are child abusers. We've been here before but thankfully education has helped to eradicate unjustified fears.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Educate women who have concerns they shouldn't have concerns?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
We've been through this with Irish, gays, blacks and any number of minorities. Why do you think prejudice against trans people is different and acceptable?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
How is a disabled lady who wants a female to give her intimate care accusing a trans person of being a sex monster?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
OK but why would you not support an amendment that specifically excluded sex offenders from the terms of the legislation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
What does a disabled lady have to fear from a trans person?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
You don't think she has a right to have a biological female to give her intimate care, especially if she has been abused by a man in the past? Or should she just get on with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Would a trans person on the sex offenders list be allowed to do a job that involves intimate contact with patients or vulnerable people?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Should someone who was robbed by a black person be allowed to discriminate against all black people.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Like I say, I'm split between both sides of the debate, but that's because there's strong arguments on both sides.
Ask this disabled woman https://twitter.com/hen10freeman/sta...22204467351556Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Powerful stuff, how anyone could read that and still think there isn't a problem is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
No. But nor should I as a white person be allowed to say I'm black just because I feel that I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
What about patients not wanting black people touch them, is that a valid concern? Should all gynecologists be female, should all urologists be male or should people be given a choice rather than simply allowing prejudice to win the day. I'm sure the lady in your example wouldn't have a trans person forced upon her, medical professionals are sensible enough to take individuals circumstances into account when providing treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Ah, so your against the whole idea? That doesn’t really change with the legislation?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That makes no sense, the gender spectrum is not just black and white, there's lots in-between. A better example would be can a person born to different coloured parents decide if they're black, white or something in-between.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Don't be so sure. We already have guidance that if a woman objects to a trans identifying male is in a female ward the line is there are no men in the ward. In addition, it will be a criminal offence to reveal if someone has a GRC. So there can be no discretion in the manner you suggest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Why does it make no sense? f I can identify as anywhere on the 'gender spectrum' then why can't I identify on a racial spectrum?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
As far as I'm concerned you can identify as what you feel you need to. Crack on.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Fine, but it's not all about individual feelings It would undermine anti-racism approaches and work to improve outcomes for racially disadvantaged groups. The issue of confusion with the gender definition is that it confused and vague. And gender isn't sex. Unless you are suggesting that people can change sex?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
A woman requesting female assistance in the example I gave does not make her prejudiced against trans people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Bemused by Shona Robison's justification for allowing 16 year olds to change their legal gender. Yes you can vote, leave home or get married at that age but you change your vote, leave a marriage or go back home. If you change your gender you are legally bound to live in it for life.
You can literally change your gender. That’s what this is all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
According to the recent Court of Session ruling a GRC changes your sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
We're entering the land of make believe.
That's not the point I'm making.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I’m not sure what point you were making then?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The comparison to racism is abhorrent misogynistic nonsense. Telling a female that has been raped and doesn't want a biological male counselling her, that she is bigoted is brutal.
Men constantly saying, why don't women just get on with it.
We entered that land a long time ago. These clowns in the SG and Sturgeon in particular are leaving one sorry mess for our offspring.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I see the debate had to be brought to an end early due to the Holyrood lighting system being on a timer and leaving the chamber in darkness at midnight. Less than half the 150 amendments had been debated.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
A male rapist could change to female after being charged. It will then go as a female on female crime and he would be sent to a female prison if convicted.
LucyHunterB
Tied vote on Michelle Thomson's amendment pausing GRC applications by anyone charged with a sexual offence is a tied vote 61/61. Deputy Presiding Officer (in charge) uses casting vote to defeat citing long-standing convention
In addition to that it's particularly disappointing to read that Michelle Thomson's proposed amendment suggesting a pause to the GRC applications of known sex offenders was defeated by the presiding officer's casting vote after being tied 61-61. Bemused as to how anyone could object to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Yep I'm stunned by that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
A victim of sexual assault or rape not wanting to be touched by someone with some or all male sexual organs is comparable to a racist not wanting to be touched by a black doctor.
I read Eddie Izzard the other day saying she can flip between 'boy mode' and 'girl mode' simply by changing shoes. Maybe someone should have told Emily Davidson that, would have let her live a long and happy life. They can tell rape victims that as well; 'well the doctor actually has ladies shoes on so just get on with it you filthy bigot'.
Oh get off your high horse, comparisons are perfectly legitimate when trying to understand a situation, it's how people build opinions.. It doesn't mean I'm equating one to the other. I've worked with trans people and some of the treatment they receive is akin to racism and due to lack of education they all get stamped as being sexual perverts in much the same way gay people were labelled not so long ago. Nobody is accusing rape victims of being bigots here, that's just you being hyperbolic as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I'm trying to get my head around arguments on both sides and to do that I need to make comparisons and try and see things from both sides of the story, maybe you should try that rather than go at anyone not 100% aligned with your opinion like an attack dog.
Does the GRA change that? I thought that could happen already?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There will literally be no way of determination now. Its great there is more trans rights. I think everyone on here would be happy for trans people to have every freedom we could offer bar a few minor caveats. The problem is some trans groups don't agree with this, this say trans women are literally women and people who disagree are bigotedQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
That's a get out of jail. You compared women not wanting genetically male people in female only situations to racism multiple times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
I'm pointing out that Robison equated changing your legal gender at 16 to getting married, leaving home or voting. You can vote for anyone you like or not vote at all. You can end a marriage and, for most, you can go back home. A GRC is for life and an attempt to abandon your acquired gender could, under the terms of the legislation, make you liable to prosecution. IMHO (and clearly many others) that is a too hefty a responsibility for a 16-year-old, particularly as it has been confirmed you can begin the process of living in your acquired gender at 15. Sure, there will be some for whom such a move will be entirely manageable but who among us didn't see their views, life experience and biology develop between 15 and 18? Is embarking on a change that could potentially lead to irreversible medical intervention really advisable at 15?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I most certainly did not. I won't hold my breath waiting on an apology though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I think there is a misunderstanding here. I don't think anyone is arguing against trans people. The concern is that the new system facilitates predatory men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
It's not only that it disregards women's wishes. To say to a disabled woman, what have you got against trans men is brutal imo. The patriarchy has taken over, women need educated in what is right and how they are wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by archie
It's the 16/17 year old thing that doesn't make much sense as well. Only last year the SNP were kicking up a fuss about the UN Children's Rights and how the evil Tory's blocked it. If that Bill had passed it classed anyone under 18 a child. Named Persons Bill also stated anyone under 18 would need a responsible named person as under 18 you need support and guidance and are vulnerable. Seems a bit odd.
And if the Greens had their way it would be children aged 8 and above who could apply for a GRC.
Discussion of potential legal issues arising around indecent exposure https://musingsofpaul325885992.wordp...posure-part-2/
You should probably go back a dozen or so pages on this thread and absorb the discussion. There's a decent bit of debate and it's gone way beyond the kind of discrimination you describe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
If you want to know who's labelling rape victims as bigots, do some reading. Maybe start here https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...ersy-xdcpfr0cv
Or to put it more bluntly :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crunchie
Wings Over Scotland | The Disgraces Of Scotland
The fact that the amendment was tabled by the SNP's Michelle Thomson, herself a rape victim, underlines how unbending the SG are in their determination to see this legislation enacted.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I was glad to see that here, at least, Labour voted against the government.
For me the suggestion that those opposed to trans women providing intimate care to vulnerable females or support to sexual assault victims are bigots is deliberately misrepresenting the views of a lot of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
A comparison to racism or even homophobia is wholly inavlid imo. There is no suggestion, at least on my part or the part of anyone on here as far as I can see, that 'all transgender people are sexual predators'. The issue is twofold. Firstly that the legislation leaves open loopholes for predatory men and it isn't for us to dictate to women whether their fears around such issues are founded or not. It's a variation of 'not all men'. Of course a rape victim or a vulnerable person requiring personal care has the option to request a biological female carries out the task but they shouldn't be put in that position, it should be a given, particularly in the case of the former. I'm not a sexual predator, I've got a valid PVG that suggests I am no risk to vulnerable people and a further enhanced Disclosure would back that up. I don't believe someone in a vulnerable or distressful situation not wishing to be in a potentially intimate situation with me is being discriminatory though, they aren't branding me a sexual predator but their own lived experience may put them in a position where they feel safest with someone of the same biological sex as them. That ultimately brings us to the 2nd point, you can't wholly and completely change biological sex. I fully support people's rights to identify as they wish, gender is a broad spectrum, but sex isn't. Someone can use hormone therapy, they can have breast augmentation etc etc but in intimate situations if there is upset or distress caused by someone who was born biologically male, who may still have male sexual organs, then the safeguard should be that such situations are taken off the table and can't happen.
Unfortunately this is an area where there is a crossover between trans rights and women's rights. For me the rights of women, particularly those in a vulnerable or distressing situation, have to win through. Discriminating against trans people in almost every area of life is wrong, it's entirely justifiable to argue they should have the same legal protections as other marginalised groups. However the area around personal care and sexual assault is so loaded (and impacts such a small amount of people) that there absolutely should have been a separate and new legal safeguard specific to this legislation put in place. It's a minority of a minority who would be impacted and it suggests the politics of this has become much like the societal debate, it's wholly ideological and compromise in any form is off the table.
I don't know what the avenues open to legal challenge are, but if the likes of Rowling have anything to do with it the fight to regain lost women's rights will continue to be placed front and centre even when this flawed legislation passes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
Fight isn’t over, Rowling tells feminists holding vigil | Scotland | The Times
Funny the amount of amplification "Rev" Campbell is getting from some of those who used to clutch their pearls the most tightly over some of his previous pish. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
(FAOD - don't know if that applies to HH specifically, but it's all over twitter.)
What's your take on the points he made?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Campbell or HH? I haven't read the article.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Edit: had a quick look at Wings. Like his stuff about Hillsborourgh and completely losing the plot over Kezia Dugdale, I think it shows him to be somewhat unstable and in need of help, tbh.
He's definitely the unionist's go to blogger these days. Changed days indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Bearing in mind he's already had a legal run-in with Kezia Dugdale he may be sailing close to the wind with the 'naming and shaming' of MSPs rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
It's a funny one. In 2014 he was absolutely loved by the yes campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
So was Alex Salmond.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2022...-scotland-act/ Very interesting legal blog on the legislation the interactions with UK Law. In summary - a mess.
I used to like some of his fact checking takedowns then too. But someone (on here, I think) pointed me at his Hillsborough stuff. A real eye opener. The Kezia Dugdale obsession further pointed to the guy being a bit unhinged, frankly.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sure was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
She can't have long in the snp
Joanna Cherry KC
@joannaccherry
I am horrified by the voting down of amendments designed to prevent rapists & violent sex offenders from abusing Self-ID. I will speak at this rally later in support of rebel SNP MSP colleagues. For me this a matter of conscience
I see other countries are going through the same debate
https://amp-rfi-fr.cdn.ampproject.or...s-spanish-left
Of course. Countries need to bring legislation into line with international human rights legislation. That’s the reason Ireland did it and it’s the same for everyone. England won’t be able to avoid it unless they leave more international bodies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As a non female non trans person I'm in no way effected by this debate. It's also highly unlikely that I will be raped by a woman and then offered psychological support from a trans man. For that reason I can only try and understand the fears and anguish on both sides of the debate but in reality there's more than two sides to this debate with different bases of opinion being influenced by their own personal sexuality or even religious beliefs. I get that you will probably disagree with that point because you believe sex to be binary but even the scientific community is divided on that point. I can understand the fear some women will have regarding this legislation but I can also imagine that for transgender people it feels like discrimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
1273 posts including this one and my first on this topic i think. Is it OK to see both sides and feel conflicted on almost every point raised by both sides? That's where I am. I understand both sides of the argument and I can see both sides cases.
I should also say that it is an incredibly complex matter and I feel that it is a shame that it has become so entrenched between different political groups. There's no doubt that there are some people completely using this for political gain, some personal and some party.
First and last post for me on this topic
I can def see both sides to a point. I think that ideally there could be certain jobs that are not available to trans people but as I understand it, this wouldn’t be compatible with other equality laws out there which is why they are fighting these amendments so hard. It only takes one part of the bill to not be legal for the whole thing to fall apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
I’m glad sports have been exempted and it’s being left to individual sports authorities.
I think some of the hypotheticals being thrown around have a similar likelihood of happening as Hibs winning the champions league but I can understand some peoples fears. I think it would be better to help people address those fears rather than amplify them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How do you address rape victims not wanting male bodied people in their centre, education or saying OK we will exempt that. Same goes for females wanting female bodied careQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Good post and a fine summary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
The other big issue is the silencing of debate through too readily used accusations of transphobia and the like. We've seen it in a very public way with JK Rowling and the efforts of the likes of Emma Watson to "protect the franchise" and distance themselves from her views.
I was speaking with family last night and I was really concerned when someone said to me that they were afraid to like certain posts on Twitter because they feared that some colleagues would interpret that as transphobic and that their future career in paediatrics would be hindered. Of course they are not Transphobic and have done a lot of thinking about whose rights take precedence. We've seen orgnaisation baulk at
Indeed. 'Addressing those fears' sounds all very well but it's little more than hot air when you're not somebody likely to find yourself in such a distressing situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Respectful compromise would have been the way ahead here. A legal distinction between gender identity and biological sex would ensure protection for both women and trans people from discrimination and ensuring the legality of women-only services from the point of view dignity and safety. Sadly our self-styled 'progressive' SG has refused to countenance compromise, leaving women to deal with the consequences.
I wrote to my local Labour MSP on the matter, questioning their support for the bill. I won't paste their entire lengthy reply, but here's a snippet:
'It is not true to say we are blindly supporting this. Our role is to find the compromise which has been sadly lacking from the Scottish Government. While we agree that our gender laws require some reform, they must be based on and not supersede the 2010 Equalities Act.'
Of course that works both ways. Even on this thread we see support for the bill characterised as favouring rapists and sex offenders over women.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've posted a fair bit on this and I genuinely believe that posters on all sides mean well. I wonder whether some of the issues might have benefitted from a citizens assembly type approach to work through the issues in a less combative way? Right now it feels really polarised and I think the constitutional overlay is not helping.
It needn't be that polarised and I don't think it is for most people. There are, however, clear flaws in the legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
How can it be right, for example, that in future any male will be able to declare they intend to live as the opposite sex despite the SG being unable to define what that means in practice? Furthermore, how can the SG argue on one hand (as they did in court) that a GRC changes not just someone's gender but their sex for the purposes of the Equality Act yet on the other claim this legislation is merely an administrative change which will have no consequences for women's rights?! Just plain nuts.
Just because these consequences are, for now, hypothetical, doesn't make this good law and the SG's tin-eared response to such valid and, in many cases, heartfelt concerns has only stoked further division.
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Couldn't agree more.
I think the concerns around the lack of safeguarding and the wooliness of definitions are real and need addressed and sadly this doesn't seem to be happening.
But I also think that some people don't get that trans people just want to be full members of society. Not just a tolerated group of 2nd class citizens in the way gay people used to be when they weren't allowed to get married, have a family or their sexuality was unmentionable in classrooms.
And the people who are using it as an anti-Indy wedge issue are just contemptible, imo.
On your last point, I think there is maybe a discussion for another time about the politics of this. The SG is usually pretty sure footed on these public facing matters. But they have got themselves into a right mess and walked into a trap with the sex offenders stuff. TBH I can't see what this is achieving for longer term goals.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Sometimes longer term goals don’t come into it. If you believe it’s the right thing to do and it keeps you in line with international best practise then that can be enough. It’s should have zero to do with Indy.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The wooliness is definitely a significant concern. It looks a little like "feeling like a particular gender" are the thing that is what matters here. I have to be honest, what does that actually mean?
Identifying as a woman is a phrase many women are not happy with. They say they don't identify as women, they are women.
If we are men, what is it that makes us men and different to women? How would a woman know what that feels like?
Are we in the territory of looking at a concept of gendered souls? What shared experiences do those who identify as women have with those born female? Can anyone explain in terms that don't resort to stereotypical social conformities like clothing, interests etc.
I'd really be interested to hear what people feel it is to be their "gender".
The other aspect of this is, as someone touched on, the ability to monitor for key discriminations and health issues related to biologically sex. The meaningful nature of information about a person in planning for medical needs for example.
Equality in employment, pay differential between the sexes - all at risk of becoming harder to track.
Growing up we didn't have the same emphasis on identity as we do now. Terry Halls passing brought that to mind. Looking back to the music of his career heights, the big political messages were class orientated, poverty fighting. UB40 Signing Off, Specials Ghost Town, A Town Called Malice...
I think it's suiting some interested parties to have society tangled up in identity wars...it keeps prying eyes from other things. Maybe both sides of this debate have been lured into spending energies on this deliberately. Social media aiding and abetting along the way...
I think there's a lot in what you say. How to be radical and progressive without actually changing anything and with no consequence for proponents.Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysGot2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
That's a tad simplistic and you know it.
Where would we find an example of 'international best practice' in this area? The battle lines which have been drawn in Scotland indicate we're a long way from that, while polling in Ireland doesn't seem to indicate approval for their adopted measures:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Irish Public Have Say in First Irish Gender Poll - The Countess
I'm not familiar with the pollster so I have no doubt you'll find a way to discredit them :wink:
Is success based on it popularity?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Another angle on this, particularly for teenagers, especially girls, is we've had a decade of support for young people to love the skin they're in - whether they be overweight,underweight, of a particular hair or skin colour or body shape. To learn to love themselves for who they are...a bit at odds with a narrative they could be born in the wrong body?
Anorexia is reducing in teenage girls which is good news but it's coincided with a increase in teenage girls identifying out of their natal sex. Body image and dealing with the trials of puberty at play?
I'm not sure that's the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
There are huge chunks of the bill I find myself broadly supportive of but the failure to put safeguards in place around sexual offences is hugely problematic and the legitimate concerns of a number of women can't just be dismissed. That's not suggesting those who feel differently favour rapists but the bill potentially does, inadvertently of course.
It's an issue that will impact such a minority that it really should be a no brainer to put the safeguard in place. It's something that won't ever impact on and thus discriminate against almost the entirety of the trans population. The point remains though that under the current bill a rapist could potentially legally change their gender and as such be tried as a woman. Female rape is such a grey area legally in Scotland that there is potential they could then be subject to a lesser charge. That's wrong by any measure. Of course it would be challenged but the judiciary don't write the law, only interpret it. If the bill passes as is then their hands could well be tied. I daresay a counter challenge would argue trying someone legally identified as a female as a male was discriminatory.
That's such a niche issue, such a hypothetical that it would be smart politics and a sensible compromise to put a legal safeguard in place to stop it ever occuring. The opportunity to do so was missed last night.
The emphasis should be on changing men's behaviour towards women.
I'd very much doubt there will be any more cases of rapists invading female spaces as a result of the bill than there have ever been.
I can't help but think we're at a "Dinosaur" moment in time and that future generations will look back and think WTF were they thinking, similar to how we now look back at 70's comedy. Problem is I've just not figured out who the dinosaurs are.
I think full blown rape is a cop out and overblown on both sides. I personally think that women's rights and wishes being eroded is a bigger scandal. Just because they won't get raped doesn't mean they shouldn't have the choice to have single sex situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by heretoday
Having a biological male in a female rape counselling group session won't show up in any statistic, it might not seem a big deal to many men but its huge for many women.
The dignity of an old lady or someone with a disability wanting a biological female giving them intimate care. That's also nothing for some but a big deal to many effected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-64058140
Vote delayed.
I'm still finding it hard to comprehend why that amendment wasn't accepted. As Ash Regan asked earlier, do you think this legislation makes women more or less safe? The answer is obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
What I'm asking is when or if it has been accepted that gender self-ID is 'international best practice'? The views of the electorate surely count for as much as those of their elected politicians and the apparent lack of consultation in Ireland and Denmark, coupled with the questionable range of the public consultation in Scotland makes me wonder what has brought us to this stormy pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It just seems to me a slam dunk for both political compromise and common sense. It's so niche that it would impact less than a handful of people in a lifetime.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
It's an extreme but should have been all the easier to find commonn ground on because of that. Something like intimate care provision is a far more complex debate and one that I'm far more conflicted on.
https://news.stv.tv/politics/vote-on...ed-at-holyrood
The Scottish Government insists the legislation will not impact the Equality Act, which allows for trans people to be excluded from single-sex spaces such as changing rooms and shelters, something that was affirmed by an earlier amendment from Labour’s Pam Duncan-Glancy.
That can't be true. The Equality Act ensures legal provision for female only services, which exclude males, regardless of gender. Now that the Court of Session has ruled that a GRC changes both gender and sex for the purposes of the Equalities Act a man will now be able to access such services simply by stating they are a woman. The answer to the thorny question of what is a woman is about to become a lot easier to answer in Scotland because the answer will be anyone who says they are. Absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns