https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/whatisthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Printable View
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/whatisthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Thanks for taking the time to post this. The issue is that the concepts have become really blurred. And the interaction between the GRA and the Haldane judgement reinforces that. So far from being separate they have become conflated. I guess most people don't have problem if a man chooses to live as a woman. But it where he says he is a woman that all of the issues arise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Bad faith actors like Katie Dolatowski would certainly see a Gender Recognition Certificate as a loop in the law that can be exploited to gain access to woman only spaces. This is the male pedophile who identifies as a woman who was convicted of filming a 12 year old girl with the mobile phone over the partition wall in the female toilet cubicle of a Halbeath Asda Store. Same person also grabbed a 10 year old girl by the face in a Morrisons in Kircaldy forced her into the female toilet cubicle and sexually assaulted her. This person had stayed at a domestic violence refuge for mothers and children in Leeds for 71 days and also a woman only hostel in Fife.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Katie Dolatowski was jailed at Polmot young offenders institute for male offenders, but after assaulting a fellow inmate has since been transferred to the woman only Cornton Vale Prison.
https://news.stv.tv/west-central/sco...ice-criticised
Nothing really to do with the GRA though is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Only that it a) makes the process much shorter and easier and b) introduces criminal penalties for revealing that someone has a GRA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
And yet organisations like Stonewall insist the numbers are far larger and growing so rapidly that ever increasing resources need to be devoted to their needs. If the numbers reported in that Guardian piece are accurate (we don't of course yet know Scotland's numbers due to the SG's screw-up over the census) then the trans population is so tiny as to be almost invisible. Just underlines the absurdity of a very small number of people wielding such influence over the SG that they've used a sledgehammer to crack a nut approach over legislation which has served only to create more problems than it solves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The GRA has a lot to do with male sex offenders being transferred to woman's prisons because if being a woman is an identity category rather than the reality of biological sex then inevitably some male prisoners will self-ID.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
As is said here before the GRA was introduced in Ireland in 2015 there was no one in the women only prison for a sex crime and now there are three and they are all men who identify as women.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmFr71msWYI
Lengthy discussion on Politics Live this afternoon on the GRA in Scotland. Bit of debate around if the UK Government will for the first time use a S35 order to stop the Bill getting Royal Assent. I think they have about 1 week left to do it if that's what they plan to do.
Scots gender certificate ‘invalid’ south of border | Scotland | The TimesQuote:
Originally Posted by James310
https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/10/tories-review-lgbtq-gender-recognition-certificate-deal?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABII ACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=167338769795 13&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share= https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2023%2 Fjan%2F10%2Ftories-review-lgbtq-gender-recognition-certificate-dealQuote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Trans people from countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand have had their gender recognition certificates respected by the UK for years. Seeking to end this system is an extraordinary move, not based on evidence or experience, that will effectively serve as a ‘trans travel ban’.”
Here is a clip from Politics Live.
https://twitter.com/soniasodha/statu...EnDqNQgqA&s=19
Unlike those countries, the Scottish reforms remove all checks and balances from the process of acquiring a GRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
I suspect a refusal outwith Scotland to recognise certificates issued here won't work. Debbie Hayton, who has a far deeper understanding of what's at stake than me, explains here why the UK government is likely to have to challenge the bill itself (and interestingly points out that a Westminster v Holyrood battle over this issue may not actually suit Sturgeon, bearing in mind how unpopular the bill is among the Scottish electorate at large):
The UK can’t ignore Scotland’s gender recognition Bill (spectator.co.uk)
Sonia Sodha has been consistently spot-on when it comes to the dangers inherent in this legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
"Yes there will be howls of outrage from the SNP, and no doubt Sturgeon would drag the matter through the courts. But what really matters is the court of public opinion, especially in Scotland. The SNP has been spoiling for a fight over sovereignty. Where better for the UK government to challenge them than over an issue that is unpopular among the people of Scotland? Polling suggests that two thirds of Scots oppose self-ID"Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I really hope Nicola Sturgeon isn't using Trans people as pawns in her constitutional battles. I keep hearing this was years in the making and not rushed, if that's the case why wasn't something as simple as checking it against UK law done in a more detailed way.
A complex issue which is rather nuanced, but the way I read the poll being quoted (unless there's another one) is that the two thirds who oppose were asked specifically about whether they agreed with reducing the age from 18 to 16.
Obviously, if that's a part of the legislation then they effectively oppose the legislation in its entirety but it feels a bit disingenuous to use that figure against the whole concept. :dunno:
EDIT: I assume this is out of date now, but BBC seemed to have data which covered the broad topic and specifics. It had a similar result (53% opposition to 16-year olds v 31% support) but also showed that a majority did favour the overall right to self-ID (40% v 38%).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60214574
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-64228256
Looks like it's England that is out of step with the rest of the UK.
That would terrible, taking a side in these matters due to a dislike of one of the protagonists.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
You certainly seem to consider this a constitutional issue. Sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am not the one in Government making laws that are poorly designed and researched. As pointed out previously this isn't the first time. Where are the check and balances?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Remember the UN Children's Rights Bill, the SNP were advised it was outwith the competency of the Parliament but went ahead anyway and then made a big thing about how the evil UK Government was blocking the rights of children etc, yet a few small amendments would make the Bill perfectly fine. Have the SNP made those changes and brought it back to Parliament seeing as it was so important? No, of course they haven't.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/p...ights-28830728
"SNP accused of turning children's rights bill into 'constitutional bunfight'
Scotland's Children's Commissioner warned "Government inaction speaks louder than words" after the legislation was blocked by the Supreme Court"
So they have form for doing this.
Yet it's the SNP who are obsessed with that isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Lia Thomas removed the person who was 17th from being in the semi final, the person who was 9th from being in the final, removed the person who was 4th from being on the medal podium, removed the person who was 2nd who was the first biological woman from being the actual champion, so that is five woman in one event alone that lost out when Lia Thomas transitioned (no pun intended) from ranked 462 in the male category to number 1 in the female category.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sgjc29QCGo
Regardless which party submitted this Act and I accept it received cross party support. But it’s poor legislation due to the lack of checks and balances…. I honestly believe legislation this will be used by predators or voyeurs. Having dealt with more sexually assaulted or rape victims than I care to remember. I fully agree with the spirit of the Act however the execution leaves a lot to be desired.
A piece of legislation focused on widening the rights of one group which diminishes the hard-won rights of another cannot be good law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
https://www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lia-thomas-trans-swimmer-ron-desantis-b2091218.html?amp=&_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq33 1AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ao h=16734736265342&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google .com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk% 2Fnews%2Fworld%2Famericas%2Flia-thomas-trans-swimmer-ron-desantis-b2091218.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Ms Thomas skipped the 2020-21 swimming season, and so she has now been on HRT for nearly three years. According to Sports Illustrated, she lost strength and an inch of her height on HRT, making it impossible for her to match her performance.
So how does she perform as a swimmer today?
Let's look first at Ms Thomas's record in the NCAA. While some of her fastest times have been in other competitions, these are the easiest results to access and compare across multiple years and athletes.
Ms Thomas won the women's 500 yard freestyle race in 4m 33.24s. She came fifth in the 200 yard race, with 1m 43.40s, and eighth in the 100 yard race with 48.40s.
These were impressive results, but they weren't record-breaking. Though the overall competition saw 27 all-time NCAA records broken, Ms Thomas's times weren't among them.
A whopping 18 of those were broken by Kate Douglass of the University of Virginia (UVA), who now has the fastest times in US college history in the 50 yard freestyle, the 100 yard butterfly stroke, and the 200 yard breaststroke.
"It is easy to see how dominant Kate is.
She went from a crap male swimmer to one of the best female swimmers. That's thanks to puberty as a male. In March she won the ncaa championship beating the Olympic silver medalist by 2 seconds. The winner of the female race had a *****.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
She was going to take part in the trials for the Paris Olympics but thankfully the isf have just said, anyone that has puberty as a male will not be able to compete in female international competition.
Are you saying that the independent didn't get the facts right in the article?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sounds like problem solved by the sports authorities. The way it should be.[emoji106]Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Eh. I'm just saying facts. She was around the 600 best male 200m male swimmer at Penn state. She transitioned and was picked in the top 5 squad of females.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
The fact as so obvious, that if you go through male puberty you will have an advantage compared to if you didn't.
As oz says common sense has prevaled in the world stage but not US. Thomas winning the title last summer means a female lost out, that could cost sponsorship and a career. Place's in swim teams can mean scholarships, so biological females can lose out on getting a degree.
Yet she was 5th and 8th in the shorter races at the NCCA event? She obviously isn't using her male muscles very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Because she is a poor swimmer. 584th best in the males 200m at her university, who knew that many males swam at penn state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
If I transition into a female tomorrow I'm not going to win any female Olympic medals, as they have spent their lives on it, are extremely talented and I'm hopeless. I will get a massive advantage that I shouldn't though.
I was Edinburgh schools level at football. If I played the female game I maybe would have got in a Scotland youth squad. I'd have taken the place of a more talented female just because of my physical attributes.
You would have got in the full Scotland squad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I coach an u17 boys team and I’m confident we would beat any team in the SWPL. That’s not a criticism of the women’s game. The have some amazing players. It’s just that the boys are now a lot faster and stronger.
Last season Spartans ladies played against the boys u14’s and only won 3-2 with a couple of late goals as the boys ran out of steam. That same team this year would beat them.
Male and female sport can’t and shouldn’t be compared. They are both great to play and watch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The-Scottish-Gender-Recognition-Reform-Bill.pdf (policyexchange.org.uk)
Think tank paper concludes the bill meets the requirements for a Section 35 order. Needless to say folk will dismiss it as a right-leaning publication but having had a read of it I'd say the case it makes is hard to argue with.
I’m sure we’ll find out soon enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Brit Awards got rid of gender based awards and now all 5 nominations for Artist of the Year are male. Apparently they got rid of male and female categories as non binary Sam Smith couldn't be nominated in male or female seeing as he doesn't identify as either.
If I was a woman artist I would be pretty annoyed at this.
Well I hope he's happy not picking a gender. 5 female artists that would have got a sales bump that comes with a nomination now lose out. Think there needs to be a new suffragette movement as women's rights and achievements are being chipped away all over the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
And if they are all female next year, will you be annoyed at that?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In last year's event, which was gender-neutral, 10 out of 15 categories were won by women or female-fronted acts. This year, no-one has more nominations than Wet Leg.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
I am not annoyed as I am not being considered for a Brit Award. I don't see a problem however keeping male and female categories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Aren’t women lucky to have a man like you to tell them how they should feel about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
I think it says a lot about your opinion of female artists that you believe they need gender protected awards in order to win. The Mercury Music prize is often seen as the highest accolade in British popular music making and is non-gender specific, 3 of the last 5 winners have been women. You might disagree but women are just as good at making music as men.
Here is a woman that disagrees with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by CapitalGreen
https://inews.co.uk/culture/music/br...-music-2080582
"2023’s gender-neutral Brits nominations are an affront to women in music
Despite efforts to be more inclusive, this year’s nominations reflect an industry living in the past"
You don't see the irony of what you posted as you as a man are saying she is wrong and telling her how to feel.
I am guessing you would support getting rid of best male/female Oscars etc. Where does it end?
For the most part, Art is art. Why would there be a need to differentiate between genders to decide who is "the best"? ( the last bit is in itself problematic IMO, but that's for another debate)Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
We've had the likes of the Turner and the Booker for years. I don't recall there being much of an issue about their being gender-neutral.
I'm not sure, Adele will be happy hearing the culture writer, Emily bootle, class her clean sweep of awards last year as a fluke.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
When physical advantage doesn't play a role in competition, isn't separating the sexes a step backwards in equality and doesn't it devalue any awards?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
I hadn’t read her opinion so how could I say her opinion is wrong? I also didn’t tell anyone how to feel, I told you what I felt about your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
As for the Oscar’s, until there is an end to the male domination of leading roles in the Hollywood film industry, I see a strong argument for gender specific awards for acting being protected. For example, the top 10 highest grossing films of 2022 all had male lead actors. I no longer see the same gender imbalance existing in UK popular music. The current top 5 singles and 4 of the top 10 albums in the UK last year are female artists or musical acts with female leads.
I think that's a fair, and interesting, question. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Is there a history of institutional bias towards men that doing so would help to address?
Perhaps there was a time where it was needed but is no longer required?
A recent YouGov poll showed public opinion sits with only sporting awards should be separated by sex; most would rather see combined awards for acting, music, literary, scientific, and humanitarian awards.
However, the consensus is also that there's a higher likelihood of this leading to more male winners across all those categories than more female winners (that's a tad misleading, as there's large "stay the same" results in each too (not sports)).
If you look at the independent web site for Lia Thomas you get the same old narrative, transwoman are women, Lia is a woman, Lia deserves to be in woman's sport. In other words the independent has skin in the game, it thinks it will be seen as modern thinking and progressive to be a trans ally, so it pursues the the war on reality that is trans ideology. I would trust an independent journalist to report on a woman's sports event that involved a transwoman about as much as I would trust a mouse to guard the cheese.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
The independent even go as far as to say that Lia Thomas never had an unfair advantage, even though Lia Thomas went from ranked 462 in the male category to winning gold in the woman's 500 yard free style. This is completely unheard of in elite sport and demonstrates clearly that transwomen are not women. The only way that woman's sport can be a fair sport is if it a protected category for biological woman only.
Exactly. Taking this to its logical conclusion, should we have separate categories for race as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
The issue is that when awards are non gender specific then they are invariably male dominated.Quote:
Originally Posted by neil7908
The Turner and Booker Prizes were both mentioned above, both winners lists dominated by men. The TCAs made a range of awards non gender specific, dominated by men. (70% male winners) The Edinburgh Comedy Award (only 5 female winners in it's history), Nobel Prizes (898 men to 61 women) and the BAFTA rising star award (9 v 3 in favour of men) follow the same pattern. 67 SPOTY awards given, 13 female winners (one as a joint winner with a male partner). MTVs best comedic award performance has had more male winners (21 from 97 nominees) than female nominees (20). You get the picture.
That's not to say there shouldn't be a move towards inclusivity but there also has to be recognition that winning prestigious awards brings career and subsequently financial advancement and as it stands in non gender defined awards women are often at a disadvantage. Without evidence that greater parity is likely then that disadvantage remains.
I'm also unsure why a female winning a female only award would devalue it. Are female awards only of value if they have been won competing against men? Does the same apply the other way around?
I take your point but the same issue applies to ethnic minorities. Is there therefore a compelling reason we would separate awards by gender but not race?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
I think the Oscars is a great example of the way forward. There was an outcry (#OscarsSoWhite) and a recognition that awards need to consider how they decide a winner, and who is involved in the process.
I personally think that is a much better approach. Scrutinise and evaluate the process to ensure its much fairer for not just women, but also other commonly poorly presented communities.
The mobos are a thing because underepresentation of black and minority artists. It would be sad if they had to create a female music and film awards due to underepresentation. Its ludicrous to say there would ever be separation in an awards show because of race its completely different and absurdQuote:
Originally Posted by neil7908
I think in some spheres there is still an element of racial segregation. The MOBO Awards would be an obvious example. Obviously not exclusively for people of colour but set up in response to the under representation of black culture in mainstream awards. Indirectly linked to my line of work there is the BIH Awards for black and Asian people working in the food and drink sector (largely because there was an under representation in the major awards in the sector). There are also things like the American Black Film Awards or the NACCP Theatre Awards.Quote:
Originally Posted by neil7908
I agree with your overall point though that greater inclusivity across the board is the most desirable outcome. Both in terms of those winning the awards and those with a say in who does so. Even with public votes I think there is still an inherent bias against women in a sphere like sport though because male sporting achievement is given so much more gravitas. Had England men won the Euros in 2021 and Kane got SPOTY no one would have batted an eyelid. The women won their tournament and Beth Mead got the award and many claimed it was 'a joke' and an example of 'woke culture'. That's the mentality you have to try and change.
I do think we are moving slowly in the right direction with such things and the greater promotion given to womens sport and the like will go some way to resolving these issues for future generations.
We have separate categories for nationalities. For type of school you go to. For type of disability you might have. There are all sorts of categories.Quote:
Originally Posted by neil7908
I doubt there is any demand for one for race though. Not in pro sport.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why is it completely different and absurd? There is a clear biological reason to separate men and women in sport. Is there a similar biological reason why women are at a disadvantage in acting or music?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The answer is no of course - we've separated categories due to a sexist selection and decision making process.
Therefore why keep the stasis quo when what needs fixing is how decisions are made?
I of course am not advocating separate awards for race. I agree its absurd. But if you follow my above logic, why is it any more absurd then separating based on gender?
Thanks for your response and actually engaging with my point. Agree we still have a long way to go but in a world where gender is fast becoming a grey area rather than black and white, I just can't understand the need to stick with old binary categories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
There is definitely an issue here, but one way to approach it feels quite old fashioned imo and does nothing to actually challenge the problem (women have their own awards so what's the issue). It just kicks the can down the road.
Better to deal with the inherent bias that leads to a lack of representation.
RE your last line, I don't think you've picked up the discussion correctly. This was about awards and having separate categories, not sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
You seriously don't see a ******g ridiculously large difference between an organisation choosing to separate an award based by gender, compared to if they did by race..Quote:
Originally Posted by neil7908
It depends. An award for acting or music, where there is no biological reason why women are at disadvantage? Then yes the comparison is with race is fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sport where women are at a biological disadvantage to men? Yes of course equating race and gender is ridiculous.
A question for you since you seem to be misunderstanding my point. Do you think women have any natural, genetic or inbuilt reason why they can't be as good at acting or music as men?
Presuming your answer is no, the question will be why they win less awards. And the answer will be inherent bias. So we can keep having a separate category and ignore the issue, or we can tackle it and build a fair system which prevents systemic discrimination against women, minorities etc. Not easy but doable.
Also, when we are moving towards gender fluidity and non-binary, why keep an archaic, binary model? Where does a non-binary actor like Emma D'Arcy fit into a male / female award category?
Because its beyond nieve to think gender neutral categories won't be dominated by men. If in 5 years there is equal men and women nominees at the brits I'll come back and say fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by neil7908
In the meantime this thread is going off into a tangent
https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/s...b_6OlY5srpf1jw
Rishi going for it?[emoji102]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If the legal advice he is getting says it impacts UK Equality Legislation what else is he supposed to do? Ignore the legal advice and just do nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It’s a political decision. Strange thing to go on though. It will be law in England within the next 5 years anyway because it is supported by Starmer.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh, so you believe Starmer now? So House of Lords gone in 5 years will it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Reseller removes J.K. Rowling's name from Harry Potter books (nypost.com)
Charging $170 to put a new cover on Harry Potter books without J K Rowling's name on them...quite a money-maker if enough suckers buy into this.
Be surprised if there's not some sort of copyright infringement here, but maybe not if folk have already bought the original books.
You’d need to be a very special individual to buy anything like that.[emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think Starmer knows what he believes. He was one of those caught floundering last year when asking political types to define a woman was de rigueur. Fearful of giving the correct answer (adult human female) he blathered a bit about gender recognition and equal rights, which has left Labour with a woolly stance on the issue (witness their supine performance at Holyrood last month when they passed up the chance to help kick this bill into touch by simply tinkering ineffectually around the edges). As ever, he'll see which way the wind's blowing before forming a clear opinion on this but he's got a few years before he has to commit to anything significant. Sunak as PM on the other hand, is faced having to make a call on a bill which will without doubt impact on UK equality laws and as far as I can see has no option but to put this legislation on hold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Or perhaps one who believes the theory that she used the name Robert Galbraith as an homage to the pioneer of conversion therapy :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
He was his usual non-committal self about this during his Kuenssberg interview earlier, although he did at least concede concerns about the new age of transition in Scotland (something which has often been overshadowed by the furore over the erosion of women's rights):Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Starmer concerned about age of gender transition in Scotland
Kuenssberg pushes Starmer and asks again, if Labour were in power, would he look to introduce a system of gender self-identification as Scotland has done?
Starmer says he wants to modernise the system and is looking at all options to "take out the indignities".
He says he has concerns that the age of transition is 16 in Scotland and the significance of the Equality Act.
He says there is a small number of people born with a gender they don't identify with and they need to be respected.
Asked if he would block the Scottish legislation, Starmer says he will wait and see what the UK government will do.
Not like Starmer to say ‘wait and see’. [emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bit more meat on the bones here from various sources:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Starmer: '16 is too young to change legal gender' - BBC News
Hard to see this not ending up in court.
Just to focus in on the headline, Starmer obviously doesn't know (or care, maybe?) that 16 is the age of majority in Scotland. Added to his claim to have been head of prosecution for the whole UK it does seem he doesn't really understand the country he wants to run.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
He’s no more interested in Scotland than the average Tory. When Tony Blair became Labour leader he was regularly in Scotland. Starmer visits about as often as Johnson did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That BBC report quotes Maggie Chapman who I saw on video from the Scottish Greens saying 6 and 7 year olds need more support as they often recognise they are trans at that age. I can see the Greens pushing for this but I think most SNP MSPs will reject this.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
At least he's finally come out with something concrete on this issue. I fail to understand why, if he feels this way, he didn't make that clear to Sarwar so that Scottish Labour actually knew where they stood. Had he done so there's a chance this ill thought through legislation could have been voted down and spared us the ongoing fallout.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
She's cut from the same bampot cloth as Harvie and Slater.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Surely he respects devolution enough to allow his members up here autonomy on devolved matters? Add to that that his concrete input is to disrespect the Scottish legal system and it really does look like Starmer is a UK centralist.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Why do Scottish Labour need to know where they stand from London? Can they not think for themselves?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought I had misheard Starmer this morning when he seemed to claim that a Labour amendment to the GRRA in respect of its relationship to the EA had been voted down.
It turns out that I heard it correctly. This from within his own party.
https://twitter.com/LGBTLabScot/stat...ym8oR-3FA&s=19
So has he been badly advised, has he not read it properly, or is he lying?
It may have been a Scottish Parliamentary Bill but it was clear it would have nationwide repercussions. I know Ian Murray was heavily involved behind the scenes in helping to co-ordinate Scottish Labour's strategy (such as it was) on this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
As I posted earlier in the thread I don't think he's been clued up enough from the start on this and has ended up creating all sorts of confusion today re his party's stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It might well have repercussions beyond our border, but isn't that the case with every devolved issue? Sounds like the old anti-devo Labour is getting the band back together.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
This could be said about so much of his attitude to Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I presume he'll be slapping down Mark Drakeford, given his support for similar reforms in Wales.
Aren't the consequences of most devolved decisions (eg in education or healthcare) Scotland's alone to own? Rare, I think, for law passed by a devolved legislature to impact on UK-wide law (in this case the Equality Act).Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
I would say no, the Scottish Parliament cannot pass legislation that impacts UK wide legislation. We saw that with the UN Children's Rights Bill and of course the Referendum Bill. The Scottish Parliament is free to make law that impacts Scotland but not UK legislation. If that was the case the Scottish Parliament could do whatever it wanted and make whatever laws it wanted without due regard to the UK, which would make no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
Smoking ban, smacking ban, baby box, new benefits etc are all for Scotland only.
I don't think it's unreasonable for the UK Government based on legal advice to say make some amendments to the Bill to make it work for Scotland and the UK.
[QUOTE=James310;7233680]I would say no, the Scottish Parliament cannot pass legislation that impacts UK wide legislation. We saw that with the UN Children's Rights Bill and of course the Referendum Bill. The Scottish Parliament is free to make law that impacts Scotland but not UK legislation. If that was the case the Scottish Parliament could do whatever it wanted and make whatever laws it wanted without due regard to the UK, which would make no sense.
Smoking ban, smacking ban, baby box, new benefits etc are all for Scotland only.
I don't think it's unreasonable for the UK Government based on legal advice to say make some amendments to the Bill to make it work for Scotland and
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Does Ireland issue British Passports and documents like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Happy to take that burden away from them if they like.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ireland is not on the list anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...nd-territories
They're not genetically programmed to do things like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
[QUOTE=Ozyhibby;7233691]The UK Gov accepted the drink drive limits in Scotland which are lower than England, Wales and NI.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
This whole UK thing is a ruse.
Cross the border at your peril.
[QUOTE=ronaldo7;7233856]So when Scotland changed the law on the limit did it also impact the existing UK laws? No, it never. It only impacts people in Scotland who are driving in Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It's not just about accepting a GRC it's about the impact on Equality Legislation.
[QUOTE=James310;7233860]It's about accepting the law of the country you are in and who's presenting to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Some don't want to of course, but I suppose we'll have to see what they come up with in the equality legislation to make their case.
Any idea why Idaho, and Texas are not on the same UK list as California?
I've got a UK driving licence, not a Scottish one.
Maybe a daft question, what's the impact on the other UK nations?
Is it that someone recognised as having changed gender (using the new Scottish criteria) then has to be recognised as that gender when it comes to reserved areas (passport issue for instance)?
[QUOTE=ronaldo7;7233867]Exactly, so you accept the UK law when you are erm part of the UK. This is strongly opposed by the public in Scotland, it's not unreasonable for the UK Government to ask to open dialogue with the Scottish Government on the back of legal advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Normally if the UK Government ignored legal advice you and fellow Yes voters would be outraged, imagine if the Supreme Court has said a referendum had be held legally in Scotland and the UK Government just ignored that legal advice and did nothing.
No idea on your last point.
[QUOTE=James310;7233875]Edited my last post.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
I've got a UK driving licence but have different laws within the UK on how I can drink and drive.
[QUOTE=ronaldo7;7233883]Who issued your Driving license? What equality laws are related to you driving?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
[QUOTE=James310;7233890]Why should someone in England be allowed to drink more before driving. It's not equal is it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Surely the UK Gov should have intervened when the Scottish Parliament changed the rights of UK citizens from 80 to 50, or maybe they just know that people presenting with a GRC should be accepted
[QUOTE=ronaldo7;7233904]As I said the drink driving limit was changed in Scotland to impact only people driving in Scotland and I don't think it's comparable to compare it to something as fundamental as the GRA. Some things are devolved and some things aren't, Equality Legislation isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
As I say you would be outraged if the UK Gov ignored legal advice on lots of other matters but you are actively encouraging them to ignore this legal advice. It's not a very consistent position.
It's not about the other nations as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
It's about the alleged clash between the GRRA and the UK EA, which might have implications for those living in Scotland.
I say "alleged", because I have yet to see, in layman's terms, any actual explanation of what that clash might be, particularly in light of the clause in the GRRA which gives the EA primacy.
[QUOTE=James310;7233911]Last para.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
You're doing it again. Thinking you know what my position is on a subject. That crystal ball of yours is wonky again.
Gonnae no dae that.