The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weecounty hibby

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

---

Saves me posting, my thoughts exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-C

Saves me posting, my thoughts exactly.

---

Agree also. Would add, have learnt a lot on this subject through reading this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

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.

---

The EA works both ways. It allows organisations to prevent access by anyone, if the owners or members of that space deem that appropriate.

Only last week, I was in what is normally a female-only space. The members allowed me in. Had they refused, I would have had no recourse, even if I'd had a GRC. The EA trumps that.

The reformed GRA doesn't change that. The challenge,however, was highlighted in the debate last night by a Labour MSP (can't remember their name). They asked that guidance be given to all affected organisations (such as Health Boards)to clarify how to apply both the EA and GRA. I don't think that's an unreasonable request,and IMO should be dealt with before the reformed GRA comes into force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The EA works both ways. It allows organisations to prevent access by anyone, if the owners or members of that space deem that appropriate.

Only last week, I was in what is normally a female-only space. The members allowed me in. Had they refused, I would have had no recourse, even if I'd had a GRC. The EA trumps that.

The reformed GRA doesn't change that.

---

I think that will need tested in court (and it will be).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think that will need tested in court (and it will be).

---

You got in before my edit 😀

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

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.

---

It's definitely first world political ongoings. No female banned from university again this week in Afghanistan is ever going to be debating with the Taliban about identity politics- it's a biological reality for them. The women in Iran can't identify out of their oppression. It's a biological reality.

A lot of the debate is from people who concede they are in a position of relative privilege who will never feel any impact from it. The people who will feel the sharp end of getting it wrong will be the most vulnerable. The old, the very young, those who are immobile or non verbal, the impoverished. That's why we need to get it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

You got in before my edit 😀

---

On it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

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

---

She speaks well here:

SNP's Joanna Cherry: Colleagues 'scared' to opppose gender reforms | Watch (msn.com)

Interesting to hear that introducing gender self-ID was not part of the SNP manifesto and has never been voted for at a party conference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

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.

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.

---

Ash Regan sums up the fundamental flaws with the new legislation:

Fact Fem on Twitter: "Ash Regan (SNP): #GRRBill "introduces a hierarchy of rights, where women's rights are demoted. Self-ID does grant new rights, as it will grant a GRC to almost anyone. This is not just an admin change or change in process that has no real world effect." ���� https://t.co/ctglKspGew" / Twitter

Don't want to come across as insensitive because I genuinely want everyone to be treated fairly and equally but this seems like a lot of hassle over something that under 500 people actually did in the last year or so, 2 days worth of debate in parliament and all the fighting when we are in the middle of economic meltdown

I know it's not insignificant for the people going through it and my heart goes out to them, but homelessness is more of an issue, where's the debates lasting days on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think that will need tested in court (and it will be).

---

You think so? I know Joanna Cherry hinted at that.

The BBC yesterday carried this breakdown of the possible legal challenges available:

Even if the bill becomes law that may not be the end of the matter, as the UK government has been making noises about challenging the legislation.

One potential avenue for doing so is the interaction between gender recognition certificates issued in Scotland and equalities law, which is reserved to Westminster.

Last week Scotland's Court of Session ruled in favour of the Scottish government over its intention to include trans people in the definition of women in terms of female representation on public sector boards.

Lady Haldane concluded that for the purposes of the 2010 Equalities Act the meaning of sex was "not limited to biological or birth sex."

For Women Scotland, which brought the case, says the ruling reveals that a gender recognition certificate effectively counts as a change of sex under the Equality Act. It says this could open up women-only spaces such as changing rooms and refuges to trans people, potentially putting women at risk.

Another potential challenge the UK government could mount would be to argue that recognising Scottish gender recognition certificates elsewhere in the UK could breach the Scotland Act 1998, which established devolution, if Holyrood were seen to be legislating beyond its borders.

Aileen McHarg, professor of public law and human rights at Durham University's Law School, said there was a third route which opponents of the bill might go down: a challenge under Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which codifies a right to respect for privacy.
But, said Prof McHarg, supporters of the bill could also mount a human rights challenge if there was a blanket refusal to recognise Scottish-issued gender recognition certificates elsewhere in the UK.

She told the BBC: "This is going to be very messy whatever happens."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4

Don't want to come across as insensitive because I genuinely want everyone to be treated fairly and equally but this seems like a lot of hassle over something that under 500 people actually did in the last year or so, 2 days worth of debate in parliament and all the fighting when we are in the middle of economic meltdown

I know it's not insignificant for the people going through it and my heart goes out to them, but homelessness is more of an issue, where's the debates lasting days on that?

---

I’ll be glad today once it’s all over. It will be forgotten about very quickly when 99.9999% of people realise that nothing has actually changed in their life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4

Don't want to come across as insensitive because I genuinely want everyone to be treated fairly and equally but this seems like a lot of hassle over something that under 500 people actually did in the last year or so, 2 days worth of debate in parliament and all the fighting when we are in the middle of economic meltdown

I know it's not insignificant for the people going through it and my heart goes out to them, but homelessness is more of an issue, where's the debates lasting days on that?

---

That's not what the fight is about. As far as I'm aware nobody on here is anti-trans and it's certainly not been an issue during the debate at Holyrood.

It's the perceived erosion of women's rights/safety inherent in this legislation which has caused such a kickback against it, coupled with concerns about making it easier for children to change their legal gender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

That's not what the fight is about. As far as I'm aware nobody on here is anti-trans and it's certainly not been an issue during the debate at Holyrood.

It's the perceived erosion of women's rights/safety inherent in this legislation which has caused such a kickback against it, coupled with concerns about making it easier for children to change their legal gender.

---

I'm stating that I don't think there is any need for this bill at all in the present moment, by all means address it down then line but it has an impact on such a small amount of people that there are what I think are more important issues like homelessness, drink and drugs issue etc that should be dealt with first as they have a greater impact on more people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The EA works both ways. It allows organisations to prevent access by anyone, if the owners or members of that space deem that appropriate.

Only last week, I was in what is normally a female-only space. The members allowed me in. Had they refused, I would have had no recourse, even if I'd had a GRC. The EA trumps that.

The reformed GRA doesn't change that. The challenge,however, was highlighted in the debate last night by a Labour MSP (can't remember their name). They asked that guidance be given to all affected organisations (such as Health Boards)to clarify how to apply both the EA and GRA. I don't think that's an unreasonable request,and IMO should be dealt with before the reformed GRA comes into force.

---

How do you interpret the Court of Session ruling? Lady Haldane's conclusion that for the purpose of the Equalities Act the meaning of sex "is not limited to biological birth or sex" indicates to me (and clearly many others) that a GRC will now count as a change of sex. I've read through her ruling several times and I can't see how else to interpret it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4

I'm stating that I don't think there is any need for this bill at all in the present moment, by all means address it down then line but it has an impact on such a small amount of people that there are what I think are more important issues like homelessness, drink and drugs issue etc that should be dealt with first as they have a greater impact on more people

---

You'd need to ask Sturgeon why she thinks it's a priority.

Plenty would argue that it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut approach and that there's no need for the bill in its current controversial form at all - with adequate protection for trans people already provided under the Equality Act and current provisions compliant with human rights legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I’ll be glad today once it’s all over. It will be forgotten about very quickly when 99.9999% of people realise that nothing has actually changed in their life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

For you sir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

You'd need to ask Sturgeon why she thinks it's a priority.

Plenty would argue that it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut approach and that there's no need for the bill in its current controversial form at all - with adequate protection for trans people already provided under the Equality Act and current provisions compliant with human rights legislation.

---

Can't help but think it's a personal thing for Sturgeon as it's a "legacy" she can look back on. Let's face it she has little else to look back on as her legacy.

Imagine if we had all night debates on homelessness or education or drug deaths, but no let's have all night debates and emergency sessions on Trans rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

How do you interpret the Court of Session ruling? Lady Haldane's conclusion that for the purpose of the Equalities Act the meaning of sex "is not limited to biological birth or sex" indicates to me (and clearly many others) that a GRC will now count as a change of sex. I've read through her ruling several times and I can't see how else to interpret it.

---

...which is why, as Pauline McNeill said last night, guidance needs to be issued to clarify what public bodies and others should do to reconcile both.

I'm not sure how that question was dealt with last night, as I had to leave it. I'd be interested in what the response was.

Did anyone watch it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

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.

---

What was questionable in the consultation process.

We've been at this for 6 long years. How much longer should we take to pass legislation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

What was questionable in the consultation process.

We've been at this for 6 long years. How much longer should we take to pass legislation?

---

The speakers were unbelievably weighted towards pro gra, there were a number of rape victims for example that complained they didn't get a voice. There was articles previously on the thread about this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

The speakers were unbelievably weighted towards pro gra, there were a number of rape victims for example that complained they didn't get a voice. There was articles previously on the thread about this

---

Also earlier in the thread, not every individual was going to get in front of a committee, although those of all sides of the process have had a fair crack at the whip to put their case.

MSPs from all parties will vote this legislation through this afternoon.

They've all had ample time to get their points across.

It's clear that the Bill will pass. The Lib Dems have indicated they will support. Well that's that. But not really. I know there are some on here who hope the issue will quietly die down. I just don't see that happening. This is for a number of reasons:
- the interaction with UK Equalities legislation may well lead to inteventions from UKG
- the Haldane judgement appears to mean that the changes are not the 'administrative change' that has been suggested
- there are likely appeals to ECHR
- and both sides will be spoiling for a legal fight on access to single sex spaces.

And that's just the legal side. The politics of it I find hard to grasp. It's possible that SG considered that this would show Scotland as a beacon of enlightenment. That could very well be unravelling as there is is an international shift on these issues. It has split the government and led to ministerial sackings. It has made the Parliament look rediculous with frantic late night sittings. It has painted the SG as uncaring about the interests of a large number of people. And in painting itself into a corner on the Bill, it has meant that issues like the sex offenders amendments will be thrown against it. Think how effective the use of the term 'rape clause' in relation to benefits has been. I have no doubt some Tory strategist will be looking to pin 'rights for rapists' to SG. And if UKG does intervene, they will likely get more support here than would be normal. Then there is the Greens. They have already said it doesn't go far enough. They have argued for children to be able to get a certificate and to get rid of the reflection period. Will they try to bring that back? As they have previously said, it was a key part of the Bute House agreement.

And finally, SG and the MSPs supporting this have given opponents an enormous stick to be beaten with. Whenever there is a horrible case that can be linked to the legislation, their support for the legislation will be brought up. Again and again and again. Would that behaviour be cynical? Welcome to politics.

So we wait to see what happens next. But after all the thud and blunder, I'm still left with the question - why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Also earlier in the thread, not every individual was going to get in front of a committee, although those of all sides of the process have had a fair crack at the whip to put their case.

MSPs from all parties will vote this legislation through this afternoon.

They've all had ample time to get their points across.

---

Says impartial you, I bow down to the women who say they have had no voice.

Patriarchy does know best though to be fair

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Says impartial you, I bow down to the women who say they have had no voice.

Patriarchy does know best though to be fair

---

Lol

Women had their voices raised loud and clear yesterday during the debate. Did you miss them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Lol

Women had their voices raised loud and clear yesterday during the debate. Did you miss them?

---

Yeah but the majority of one's with a differing opinion were speaking at the rally outside Parliament

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Yeah but the majority of one's with a differing opinion were speaking at the rally outside Parliament

---

As is their right.

Their Champions were inside parliament arguing their case, with other women arguing against them.

Good evidence based piece on how gra changes really do effect single sex spaces

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org...scotland-bill/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

It's clear that the Bill will pass. The Lib Dems have indicated they will support. Well that's that. But not really. I know there are some on here who hope the issue will quietly die down. I just don't see that happening. This is for a number of reasons:
- the interaction with UK Equalities legislation may well lead to inteventions from UKG
- the Haldane judgement appears to mean that the changes are not the 'administrative change' that has been suggested
- there are likely appeals to ECHR
- and both sides will be spoiling for a legal fight on access to single sex spaces.

And that's just the legal side. The politics of it I find hard to grasp. It's possible that SG considered that this would show Scotland as a beacon of enlightenment. That could very well be unravelling as there is is an international shift on these issues. It has split the government and led to ministerial sackings. It has made the Parliament look rediculous with frantic late night sittings. It has painted the SG as uncaring about the interests of a large number of people. And in painting itself into a corner on the Bill, it has meant that issues like the sex offenders amendments will be thrown against it. Think how effective the use of the term 'rape clause' in relation to benefits has been. I have no doubt some Tory strategist will be looking to pin 'rights for rapists' to SG. And if UKG does intervene, they will likely get more support here than would be normal. Then there is the Greens. They have already said it doesn't go far enough. They have argued for children to be able to get a certificate and to get rid of the reflection period. Will they try to bring that back? As they have previously said, it was a key part of the Bute House agreement.

And finally, SG and the MSPs supporting this have given opponents an enormous stick to be beaten with. Whenever there is a horrible case that can be linked to the legislation, their support for the legislation will be brought up. Again and again and again. Would that behaviour be cynical? Welcome to politics.

So we wait to see what happens next. But after all the thud and blunder, I'm still left with the question - why?

---

Headcase Maggie Chapman of the greens want it to be lowered to 6 year old. I remember for about 2 months my bairn wanted to be a puppy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I’ll be glad today once it’s all over. It will be forgotten about very quickly when 99.9999% of people realise that nothing has actually changed in their life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Patrick Harvie saying this is just the start, more radical reforms to come. It's not going away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Lol

Women had their voices raised loud and clear yesterday during the debate. Did you miss them?

---

And they got thrown out!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Says impartial you, I bow down to the women who say they have had no voice.

Patriarchy does know best though to be fair

---

"Patriarchy"?

Which brave misogynist do you think is pulling Nicola Sturgeon's strings?

Most of the key contributions on either side have been from women. Whatever you think of the bill, the charge that it's men ordering women around doesn't really stack up at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

It's clear that the Bill will pass. The Lib Dems have indicated they will support. Well that's that. But not really. I know there are some on here who hope the issue will quietly die down. I just don't see that happening. This is for a number of reasons:
- the interaction with UK Equalities legislation may well lead to inteventions from UKG
- the Haldane judgement appears to mean that the changes are not the 'administrative change' that has been suggested
- there are likely appeals to ECHR
- and both sides will be spoiling for a legal fight on access to single sex spaces.

And that's just the legal side. The politics of it I find hard to grasp. It's possible that SG considered that this would show Scotland as a beacon of enlightenment. That could very well be unravelling as there is is an international shift on these issues. It has split the government and led to ministerial sackings. It has made the Parliament look rediculous with frantic late night sittings. It has painted the SG as uncaring about the interests of a large number of people. And in painting itself into a corner on the Bill, it has meant that issues like the sex offenders amendments will be thrown against it. Think how effective the use of the term 'rape clause' in relation to benefits has been. I have no doubt some Tory strategist will be looking to pin 'rights for rapists' to SG. And if UKG does intervene, they will likely get more support here than would be normal. Then there is the Greens. They have already said it doesn't go far enough. They have argued for children to be able to get a certificate and to get rid of the reflection period. Will they try to bring that back? As they have previously said, it was a key part of the Bute House agreement.

And finally, SG and the MSPs supporting this have given opponents an enormous stick to be beaten with. Whenever there is a horrible case that can be linked to the legislation, their support for the legislation will be brought up. Again and again and again. Would that behaviour be cynical? Welcome to politics.

So we wait to see what happens next. But after all the thud and blunder, I'm still left with the question - why?

---

This is just a guess, but I think it's NS and allies' personal loyalty to a bunch of younger staffers/activists that have come through the YSI etc. They're all very committed to the equality/woke* agenda.

* delete to taste.

Interested to what more seasoned observers of this think of amendment 40? It would appear to be a genuine bit of cross party co-operation between Jamie Greene (the least objectionable Tory I can think of to be fair) and Gillian Martin of the SNP.

It allows the police to block a GRC application if the applicant is subject to a sexual harm prevention order (inc interim) or sexual offences prevention order (inc interim). Martin claims its effect will be the same as Michelle Thomson and Russell Findlay's rejected amendments but is in full compliance with the EHRC, which the SG claimed theirs weren't. It passed by 121 votes to 0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The EA works both ways. It allows organisations to prevent access by anyone, if the owners or members of that space deem that appropriate.

Only last week, I was in what is normally a female-only space. The members allowed me in. Had they refused, I would have had no recourse, even if I'd had a GRC. The EA trumps that.

The reformed GRA doesn't change that. The challenge,however, was highlighted in the debate last night by a Labour MSP (can't remember their name). They asked that guidance be given to all affected organisations (such as Health Boards)to clarify how to apply both the EA and GRA. I don't think that's an unreasonable request,and IMO should be dealt with before the reformed GRA comes into force.

---

Think this is who you were referring to.


For Scottish Labour, Pam Duncan-Glancy says the bill is an opportunity to improve lives and tackle inequality.

She says trans people should be recognised for who they are, and the current process needs reform.

"For society to accept them and support them to be their best self without barriers, additional costs or medicalisation," she adds.

Ms Duncan-Glancy says reform of the current "onorous" and "out of touch" system is long overdue.

She says a failure to act has allowed fear and ignorance to prosper - and "a debate that has framed the rights of trans people as a threat to the rights of women, and created a toxic environment that has let down both causes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

"Patriarchy"?

Which brave mysoginist do you think is pulling Nicola Sturgeon's strings?

Most of the key contributions on either side have been from women. Whatever you think of the bill, the charge that it's men ordering women around doesn't really stack up at all.

---

NS is a figure head snp is a machine. Patriarchy isn't fair because a lot of the lobbying has been done by trans women who aren't men.

I also wasn't talking about NS I was referring to one of the many men on the thread, that says it doesn't effect me but here's what is correct

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Interested to what more seasoned observers of this think of amendment 40? It would appear to be a genuine bit of cross party co-operation between Jamie Greene (the least objectionable Tory I can think of to be fair) and Gillian Martin of the SNP.

It allows the police to block a GRC application if the applicant is subject to a sexual harm prevention order (inc interim) or sexual offences prevention order (inc interim). Martin claims its effect will be the same as Michelle Thomson and Russell Findlay's rejected amendments but is in full compliance with the EHRC, which the SG claimed theirs weren't. It passed by 121 votes to 0.

---

That sounds reasonable IMO. It does the job many were calling for, and spikes the political guns of those who were firing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Interested to what more seasoned observers of this think of amendment 40? It would appear to be a genuine bit of cross party co-operation between Jamie Greene (the least objectionable Tory I can think of to be fair) and Gillian Martin of the SNP.

It allows the police to block a GRC application if the applicant is subject to a sexual harm prevention order (inc interim) or sexual offences prevention order (inc interim). Martin claims its effect will be the same as Michelle Thomson and Russell Findlay's rejected amendments but is in full compliance with the EHRC, which the SG claimed theirs weren't. It passed by 121 votes to 0.

---

Sounds like a very reasonable compromise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Think this is who you were referring to.


For Scottish Labour, Pam Duncan-Glancy says the bill is an opportunity to improve lives and tackle inequality.

She says trans people should be recognised for who they are, and the current process needs reform.

"For society to accept them and support them to be their best self without barriers, additional costs or medicalisation," she adds.

Ms Duncan-Glancy says reform of the current "onorous" and "out of touch" system is long overdue.

She says a failure to act has allowed fear and ignorance to prosper - and "a debate that has framed the rights of trans people as a threat to the rights of women, and created a toxic environment that has let down both causes

---

It was actually Pauline McNeill I saw, but thanks :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

And they got thrown out!

---

Funny that. I thought I sat and watched them on parliament tv put their points across very well.

Those champions of women's causes like Tess White, and Rachel Hamilton.

Greenes ammendment is for clearly fraudulent cases how do you define that. All people accused of sexual offenses should simply instantly have claim paused. It's baffling anyone would defend those who voted against

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That sounds reasonable IMO. It does the job many were calling for, and spikes the political guns of those who were firing them.

---

Spiking the guns is what it's meant to do. But why is there an objection to doing it automatically for people who are accused of sexual offences? People who are accused of offences can have lots of restrictions put on them. They can even be held on remand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

NS is a figure head snp is a machine. Patriarchy isn't fair because a lot of the lobbying has been done by trans women who aren't men.

I also wasn't talking about NS I was referring to one of the many men on the thread, that says it doesn't effect me but here's what is correct

---

Your patriarchy comment was aimed at me for daring to have an opinion on an act of parliament discussed by mainly women imo.

How do you know it won't affect our hasn't affected me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Your patriarchy comment was aimed at me for daring to have an opinion on an act of parliament discussed by mainly women imo.

How do you know it won't affect our hasn't affected me?

---

Because you said previously it doesn't affect you and your not not really in one camp or the other

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Greenes ammendment is for clearly fraudulent cases how do you define that. All people accused of sexual offenses should simply instantly have claim paused. It's baffling anyone would defend those who voted against

---

This is in the Express, and backed up by the Guardian:-

Ministers accepted a cross-party amendment from the SNP’s Gillian Martin and Scottish Conservative MSP Jamie Greene that would mean anyone convicted of a sexual offence who wants to apply for a certificate will need to be fully risk-assessed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Spiking the guns is what it's meant to do. But why is there an objection to doing it automatically for people who are accused of sexual offences? People who are accused of offences can have lots of restrictions put on them. They can even be held on remand.

---

AIUI, that amendment didn't comply with the ECHR.

Not sure why the passed one does and that one doesn't, so don't ask me :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Because you said previously it doesn't affect you and your not not really in one camp or the other

---

"Said previously"

Listened to the debate then came to a conclusion.

At no time though have I ever spoke against either women's or trans rights.

Patriarchy though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This is in the Express, and backed up by the Guardian:-

Ministers accepted a cross-party amendment from the SNP’s Gillian Martin and Scottish Conservative MSP Jamie Greene that would mean anyone convicted of a sexual offence who wants to apply for a certificate will need to be fully risk-assessed.

---

That's conviction. One of the voted down ammendments was accused. Plus in a previous article the police union said they didn't want anything to do with it as its a minefield for them. Why would it not just be an automatic ban

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Spiking the guns is what it's meant to do. But why is there an objection to doing it automatically for people who are accused of sexual offences? People who are accused of offences can have lots of restrictions put on them. They can even be held on remand.

---

I don't know. IANAL and I haven't found anything to explain what the purported incompatibilites with Equality legislation actually are. :dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

That's conviction. One of the voted down ammendments was accused. Plus in a previous article the police union said they didn't want anything to do with it as its a minefield for them. Why would it not just be an automatic ban

---

The ECHR, presumably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

"Said previously"

Listened to the debate then came to a conclusion.

At no time though have I ever spoke against either women's or trans rights.

Patriarchy though.

---

So it now affects you after listening to the debate. It's only women's rights can be eroded here. In a year when abortion is banned in America and the situation in Iran and Afghanistan, I feel women's rights are stuck in reverse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The ECHR, presumably.

---

Do you think we should follow all human rights rules even if we believe they are bad and erode human rights. I don't believe this does go against echr though and either does joanna cherry who has a good grasp

People who have been campaigning against homaphobia being called homophobic is another weird one. The abuse including rape threats towards joanna cherry is brutal

https://mobile.twitter.com/ITVBorder...25053332115456

Joanna Cherry says she's been 'demonised' because of her opposition to the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, and marginalised within the SNP.

The SNP MP says she doesn't 'need lectures on homophobia or bigotry' from anyone in Holyrood

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Do you think we should follow all human rights rules even if we believe they are bad and erode human rights. I don't believe this does go against echr though and either does joanna cherry who has a good grasp

---

I'm not a lawyer, much less an expert in the ECHR, so I can't say.

I was merely suggesting why that particular amendment was defeated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Do you think we should follow all human rights rules even if we believe they are bad and erode human rights. I don't believe this does go against echr though and either does joanna cherry who has a good grasp

---

If our parliament is legally obliged to follow them it has no choice. Afaik, the UK's equality act applies in Scotland and is reserved to Westminster.

'Approaching this using the dark arts of the whips was wrong,' says Michelle Thomson:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-s...ost_type=share

It would have been interesting to see how this went had all MSPs been allowed a free vote. Joanna Cherry seems convinced there are a number of SNP MSPs who feel too scared to go with their conscience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

If our parliament is legally obliged to follow them it has no choice. Afaik, the UK's equality act applies in Scotland and is reserved to Westminster.

---

I think there will be a complicated interaction between the two pieces of legislation, which may lead to UKG or legal intervention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

So it now affects you after listening to the debate. It's only women's rights can be eroded here. In a year when abortion is banned in America and the situation in Iran and Afghanistan, I feel women's rights are stuck in reverse

---

It affects everyone living in Scotland after today. I'm sure if you want to discuss women's rights you could start another thread. This one is about trans rights.

Parliament now suspended due to a woman shouting from the gallery.

Away from the main debate.....


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...u-dies-aged-24

It's a bit strange that there is cross party support, and even cooperation, for the bill, despite the large amount of amendments tabled, yet the debate on here seems to be divided along party lines?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think there will be a complicated interaction between the two pieces of legislation, which may lead to UKG or legal intervention.

---

:agree:

Sounds like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

It affects everyone living in Scotland after today. I'm sure if you want to discuss women's rights you could start another thread. This one is about trans rights.

Parliament now suspended due to a woman shouting from the gallery.

---

You really don't think this is about women's rights, that's unbelievable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

'Approaching this using the dark arts of the whips was wrong,' says Michelle Thomson:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-s...ost_type=share

It would have been interesting to see how this went had all MSPs been allowed a free vote. Joanna Cherry seems convinced there are a number of SNP MSPs who feel too scared to go with their conscience.

---

Some pull that. Vote with your opinion and lose your career

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

It's a bit strange that there is cross party support, and even cooperation, for the bill, despite the large amount of amendments tabled, yet the debate on here seems to be divided along party lines?

---

I was heartened to see Michelle Thompson on the SNP list of speakers even although she was against the motion.

She didn't seemed to be scared to speak up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

You really don't think this is about women's rights, that's unbelievable

---

You mentioned women's rights being eroded, then spoke about Afghanistan and Iran.

I know what the debates about thanks. 👍

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

It's a bit strange that there is cross party support, and even cooperation, for the bill, despite the large amount of amendments tabled, yet the debate on here seems to be divided along party lines?

---

And compromises are being found and amendments accepted. Sounds like a great advert for our parliament.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

You mentioned women's rights being eroded, then spoke about Afghanistan and Iran.

I know what the debates about thanks. 👍

---

Eh

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...f95ce91c38.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we could agree to draw a line between biological sex and gender, and legislation recognised that difference, there would be a hell of a lot less wailing and gnashing of teeth.

We won't though, because its neither in the interests of gender ideologues or homophobes.

Are there any women or trans-women taking part in this discussion on here, or is it all just guys having our say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

It affects everyone living in Scotland after today. I'm sure if you want to discuss women's rights you could start another thread. This one is about trans rights.

Parliament now suspended due to a woman shouting from the gallery.

---

The two are inseparable in this instance though, with the enhancement of one coming at the cost of eroding the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

What was questionable in the consultation process.

We've been at this for 6 long years. How much longer should we take to pass legislation?

---

Six years and even today not a single Scottish government minister has been able to define how, with no checks of any kind now required, what living in the opposite sex means in practice - an issue that lies at the very heart of the legislation. Absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..

Are there any women or trans-women taking part in this discussion on here, or is it all just guys having our say?

---

No idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 500miles

If we could agree to draw a line between biological sex and gender, and legislation recognised that difference, there would be a hell of a lot less wailing and gnashing of teeth.

We won't though, because its neither in the interests of gender ideologues or homophobes.

---

That line was drawn. This legislation has erased it. In Scotland there is no longer a clear answer to the question what is a woman. A utterly daft state of affairs.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...563ca3d1aa.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...563ca3d1aa.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Maybe the SG plan all along?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Maybe the SG plan all along?

---

Nah, I think they just felt it was the right thing to do.
Of course, if Jack is stupid enough to go for this then nobody on the yes side will be disappointed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Maybe the SG plan all along?

---

With a majority of women opposing parts of the bill a dangerous game to play if so

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Nah, I think they just felt it was the right thing to do.
Of course, if Jack is stupid enough to go for this then nobody on the yes side will be disappointed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Depends what you mean by stupid. I'm sure there is a political dimension, but it is not only legitimate but essential to ensure that different pieces of legislation do not contradict each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..

Are there any women or trans-women taking part in this discussion on here, or is it all just guys having our say?

---

Probably pretty unlikely given they make up a minutia of the population. But who knows?


Edit: trans women, I mean.

I have no problem with the spirit of the act …but don’t see safeguards or checks to prevent predators abusing this legislation. The finger will definitely be pointed at the Scottish Government after the first attack or rape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickhibby

I have no problem with the spirit of the act …but don’t see safeguards or checks to prevent predators abusing this legislation. The finger will definitely be pointed at the Scottish Government after the first attack or rape.

---

Suspect we'll see a legal challenge before it's enacted. Joanna Cherry alluded to that yesterday when addressing the next steps for feminist groups.

Spain also passes self-ID law for over-16s
Lawmakers in Spain passed a transgender rights bill on Thursday allowing anyone aged 16 and over to change gender on their national identity card.

The country's left-wing government and its feminist movement have clashed over the bill.

"Trans women are women," Spain's equality minister told parliament, and she denounced opposition to the law as transphobia.

However, some women's rights activists are opposed to individuals having a different gender to their sex assigned at birth.

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/sta...KR6J02tdA&s=19

How they voted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/sta...KR6J02tdA&s=19

How they voted.

---

The majority of women on the Labour benches voted for.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/new...box=1671723837


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have no doubt those that voted for the GRA today will find themselves on the right side of history 👏👏👏

#transrightsarehumanrights

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibby rae

I have no doubt those that voted for the GRA today will find themselves on the right side of history 👏👏👏

#transrightsarehumanrights

---

One of the most non-sensical expressions out there in an era of increasingly non-sensical expressions.

Twitter abuzz about an opponent in the public gallery flashing their genitals.


However...



Turns out they were fake 🙄

From twitter

Pre-planning to flash fake genitalia in the Holyrood gallery is far, far weirder than flashing your actual genitalia in the heat of the moment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..

Are there any women or trans-women taking part in this discussion on here, or is it all just guys having our say?

---

I've always assumed the latter. So I've always been a bit surprised it has went on to the extent it has. I don't think anyone here is what you would call an authority, or will be affected by the GRA, so how valid are the opinions?

*I include myself in that though, my view has always been trans people are some of the most marginalised in society. So maybe give them a break, as some of the arguments against them have been horrible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibby rae

I've always assumed the latter. So I've always been a bit surprised it has went on to the extent it has. I don't think anyone here is what you would call an authority, or will be affected by the GRA, so how valid are the opinions?

*I include myself in that though, my view has always been trans people are some of the most marginalised in society. So maybe give them a break, as some of the arguments against them have been horrible

---

I don't think anyone could say any opinion here has been poor or transphobic.

I have a wife two daughters and a non verbal severely disabled cousin, so feel it certainly affects my family.

I would give trans people every right to change bar a couple of single sex instances, that would still be a massive step.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

I don't think anyone could say any opinion here has been poor or transphobic.

I have a wife two daughters and a non verbal severely disabled cousin, so feel it certainly affects my family.

I would give trans people every right to change bar a couple of single sex instances, that would still be a massive step.

---

I didn't say anyone had been transphobic, but no one here (as far as I'm aware) has any relevent lived experience, or any professional knowledge, or academic qualifications etc, which would add validity to their opinion (again, mine included).
But I also don't agree with your belief it will really affect anyone other than trans people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

I don't think anyone could say any opinion here has been poor or transphobic.

I have a wife two daughters and a non verbal severely disabled cousin, so feel it certainly affects my family.

I would give trans people every right to change bar a couple of single sex instances, that would still be a massive step.

---

Are these exceptions missing from the bill?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibby rae

I didn't say anyone had been transphobic, but no one here (as far as I'm aware) has any relevent lived experience, or any professional knowledge, or academic qualifications etc, which would add validity to their opinion (again, mine included).
But I also don't agree with your belief it will really affect anyone other than trans people.

---

The disabled lady in the page previous that was petrified of having male bodied care as she wouldn't know if she had been abused. Her rights have changed now. It effects every woman. The cliche that this changes nothing is nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibby rae

I didn't say anyone had been transphobic, but no one here (as far as I'm aware) has any relevent lived experience, or any professional knowledge, or academic qualifications etc, which would add validity to their opinion (again, mine included).
But I also don't agree with your belief it will really affect anyone other than trans people.

---

Just out of interest, what would you count as 'relevant lived experience'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

The disabled lady in the page previous that was petrified of having male bodied care as she wouldn't know if she had been abused. Her rights have changed now. It effects every woman. The cliche that this changes nothing is nonsense.

---

Would she not be entitled to request a female chaperone present, in the same way I have been offered this for a number of procedures carried out by male doctors/clinicians? Personally, if I know the male and have built up trust I have declined the need for a chaperone, but if it was someone I had a first appt with I would accept the offer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa Cruz

Would she not be entitled to request a female chaperone present, in the same way I have been offered this for a number of procedures carried out by male doctors/clinicians? Personally, if I know the male and have built up trust I have declined the need for a chaperone, but if it was someone I had a first appt with I would accept the offer.

---

No as the female giving the care can be a trans women, as they literally are female. It won't be seen as a man giving care

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa Cruz

Would she not be entitled to request a female chaperone present, in the same way I have been offered this for a number of procedures carried out by male doctors/clinicians? Personally, if I know the male and have built up trust I have declined the need for a chaperone, but if it was someone I had a first appt with I would accept the offer.

---

It's not clear. If the person concerned has a GRC then they are considered as the sex that the GRC states. As it's a criminal offence to reveal if someone previously lived under another gender, then you would be unlikely to be told. The solution might be to offer chaperones in all cases. Whether that is a good use of rsources is another thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Twitter abuzz about an opponent in the public gallery flashing their genitals.


However...



Turns out they were fake 🙄

From twitter

Pre-planning to flash fake genitalia in the Holyrood gallery is far, far weirder than flashing your actual genitalia in the heat of the moment

---

Plenty on the twitterati saying one woman was flashing fake genitalia in the public gallery where children were present.

Sad if true.

The bill needs Royal Assent surely ?