Perfectly reasoned, rational comments which will nevertheless draw venomous flak for certain quarters.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Printable View
Perfectly reasoned, rational comments which will nevertheless draw venomous flak for certain quarters.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Can't see many thinking this is a good idea, having an 11 yr old myself then I am pretty staggered by this and can't imagine the Scottish Government going along with this at all.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...land-qpvq5bk2x
Children as young as 12 should be allowed to immediately seek a legal change to their gender without a “reflection period”, a charity that is funded by the taxpayer has advised ministers.
Scottish government proposals to fast-track gender changes would require people to live in their acquired gender for three months instead of the present two years before being allowed to apply for a gender recognition certificate.
However, Children in Scotland (CIS) said that such a requirement could be detrimental to mental health. In a submission to the Scottish government it states: “We believe this is an arbitrary time period that does not reflect the issues that many trans young people face. It presents an unnecessary time barrier which could have negative effects on trans young people’s mental health. We would prefer a move towards a formalised self-identification model where people can legally change gender at a time chosen by them.”
The charity said that its discussions with trans young people through LGBT Youth Scotland, which is also opposed to the three-month requirement, suggests “they do not make the decision to change gender lightly and have spent time considering this decision before applying”.
It has also recommended to ministers that they rethink their plan to reduce the minimum age for a gender recognition certificate from 18 to 16, arguing that they should instead consider lowering it to 12 and with no need for parental consent.
The Equalities and Human Rights Commission in Scotland agrees with CIS that a period of reflection is unnecessary, provided that applicants can fully demonstrate they understand the legal, social and personal implications of a legal change to their status.
Last night the commission said: “This is an evolving issue which we are constantly considering, and we continue to look at it as legislative proposals emerge.”
For Women Scotland (FWS), a feminist group that campaigns for sex-based rights and says the gender recognition reforms will erode women’s rights, described the intervention by CIS as “extraordinary”, especially as some people would go on to switch gender again. FWS said: “As the number of detransitioners rises, it is downright irresponsible to hurry vulnerable children, some as young as 12 years old, into decisions at what is often a confusing period.”
The Scottish government said it would bring forward the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. It said: “We are committed to making changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to improve and simplify the process for a trans person to gain legal recognition. We remain committed to developing guidance on realising trans rights while continuing to protect women’s rights.”
This stuff needs to be stopped in its track now. It's utterly ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Agree 100%. Quite disturbing really. Nobody is born into the wrong body.Quote:
Originally Posted by Since90+2
that's an extremely loaded statement. i'm not saying that they are or aren't, but gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition, and sufferers feel exactly that, with gender re-assignment surgery often being the only remedy. having a moral stance about a medical condition is pretty dodgy at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee
i totally get how people find things alarming when it is something that could effect their own children, but the most important thing if you want to have an opinion on a complex issue is to learn about the facts of the issue, and how often it is that these fears are realised - generally speaking, they very rarely are, if ever. off the cuff moral statements from both sides do nothing to help anyone.
👍Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
My niece has a son with autistic signals who refers to everyone as she, for example I'm an aunt rather than uncle, he is 9 and still plays with barbie dolls. Is this wrong?
Thank goodness for women like Dr Nicola Williams, you have to wonder why the SG would go down this route and what's their agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-60141382
Think the EHRC are right to suggest a pause to better assess the implications of this legislation.
The EHRC are playing games IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I've been involved in enough SG consultations to know the process. Whilst (despite what Patrick Harvey says) they are entitled to participate in the consultation, even though they are a UK Government body, they should be doing so within the protocols of that process.
To do what they did publicly both undermines the SG process, and attempts to give their opinion more weight than it is entitled to.
Whilst their argument may have merit, there are ways of doing it. Not respecting those ways does them no favours .
I think it has every right to be out there in the public domain.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Visits from the Police now to see what someone was thinking. No crime, just to see what someone was thinking.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...012e1a82587c25
The founder of a charity supporting women who have suffered domestic violence has been interviewed by police after she was reported for hate crime after stressing its female-only services.
Nicola Murray was left “shocked and panicky” when detectives arrived at her door after an online announcement by Brodie’s Trust that it would no longer refer women to Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC).
Talking to the officers, Murray, from Stanley, near Perth, was taken aback when she said they told her: “We need to speak to you to ascertain what your thinking was behind making your statement.”
Murray, 43, founded Brodie’s Trust in 2018 to support women from all over the world “who’ve suffered pregnancy loss through domestic violence or forced termination” by directing victims to local services for help.
She and a colleague determined its revised policy towards ERCC following statements by Mridul Wadhwa, the trans woman appointed its CEO last year, who claimed “bigoted” victims of sexual violence should expect to be “challenged on their prejudices”.
ERCC clarified its position, saying it was not seeking to “re-educate survivors” but Wadhwa angered some feminists again when she accused opponents of controversial reforms to the Gender Recognition Act of legitimising far-right discrimination of trans people.
Ministers want to change the act to make it easier for people to change their legally recognised gender. A bill is expected at Holyrood this year. Earlier this week the Equality and Human Rights Commission told them “more detailed consideration is needed”.
In September Murray posted a message on social media on behalf of Brodie’s Trust saying: “Due to deeply concerning comments made by the current CEO of ERCC we have taken the decision to no longer signpost to this service. We cannot in all conscience send vulnerable women to the service in its current state.” The message continued: “We have no interest in our clients’ religion, sexuality nor political views . . . We are a women-only service run by women for women and will not be intimidated into changing our stance on this matter.”
Detectives from Edinburgh arrived at her door on November 4. Murray said: “I ushered them through to the living room. The first thing they said was, ‘Some of your tweets have been brought to our attention.’ When they brought out the screengrabs of the statement, I said, ‘Really?’
They said, ‘Yeah, we just have to speak to you. You’ve not said anything hateful, there isn’t a crime here.’
“I said: ‘So why are you here?’ They said, ‘Because we need to speak to you to ascertain what your thinking was behind making your statement.’
“I said, ‘Protecting women and letting them know that when they come to us they have a woman-only space, and we won’t let anyone in who won’t maintain that.’”
Murray said: “Then they said, ‘We better watch what we are saying — we don’t want to be quoted as police officers saying such and such.’
I said, ‘Don’t worry about that. It is insanity, isn’t it?’ They said, ‘It is.’ They wished me well and went away.
“I was taken aback by the whole thing. I don’t believe anyone who has read that statement could view it as hateful. It was simply an affirmation of what we are doing: we are a women-only space, we aren’t going to change that, given what we do. Men cannot get pregnant, therefore they cannot experience a miscarriage and domestic violence. Why would they even want to come?”
Marion Millar, an Airdrie accountant, was arrested last year under the 2003 Telecommunications Act for tweets deemed hateful, including one with ribbons in the colours of the suffragettes, tied in a supposed noose. All charges were later dropped.
Police Scotland did not confirm details of the interview at Murray’s house, but she has a photograph of the two officers entering her house.
Last week The Times reported a warning from Police Scotland that it could not comply fully with the demands of the new Hate Crime Act until next year, because officers were struggling to cope with a surge in reported offences caused by Twitter rows.
A 76 per cent rise in reported crimes in which the transgender issue was the aggravating factor (76 reports) contrasted with 6.1 per cent growth in all hate crime reports (3,782) reflecting the impact of online rows about trans rights and gender identity, according to the Scottish Police Federation.
The figures prompted a robust debate on social media. Whadwa posted: “Since 2019, I have reported hate to the police more times than I can count. No charges, no convictions. All those things happened to me. There are witnesses and they suffered with me, my family, my friends and colleagues and others that matter to me.”
Wadhwa and ERCC were approached for comment. Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie said: “Hate crime and discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable. Police Scotland will investigate every report of a hate crime or hate incident.”
In a statement the Scottish Police Federation said: “QED.”
I don't get the sense that they're failing to respect procedure or playing games. Their argument, as you say, has merit and the call for a pause seems respectfully put. This is a more significant issue than many probably realise and the SG appear to have had their hands tied thanks their deal with the Greens, which commits them to rush this legislation through in the first year of the current parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
My point is about the political games that are being played out here. A UKG agency is putting pressure on the SG,which is naughty against the backdrop of the Indy debate. There are many other, less public and less contentious, ways that could have been done.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
FTR, I said their case "may" have merit, not "does".
Fair enough, you clearly know more about these consultation processes than I do, although I'm not convinced politics influences the thinking of most on the wider gender recognition issue. I certainly don't see the indy debate as a significant player here. The EHRC viewpoint will chime with many IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The eagerness of ERCC to involve the Police and the ridiculous of the Police indulging this is very worrying. How could anyone consider this tweet offensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
"In September Murray posted a message on social media on behalf of Brodie’s Trust saying: “Due to deeply concerning comments made by the current CEO of ERCC we have taken the decision to no longer signpost to this service. We cannot in all conscience send vulnerable women to the service in its current state.” The message continued: “We have no interest in our clients’ religion, sexuality nor political views . . . We are a women-only service run by women for women and will not be intimidated into changing our stance on this matter.”
Here's a quote from an organisation that has the polar opposite political outlook from myself.
Freedom of speech is the foundation for democracy. Without freedom of speech there is no other freedom which is why tyrants always eliminate freedom of speech first. Leftists in America are determined to eliminate freedom of speech by enforcing their own code of political correctness which labels any opposing speech as hate speech. Speakers with conservative points of view are disinvited or intimidated through organized boycotts and violent protests. It is unAmerican to disallow the expression of opposing views but Leftists are tyrannical in their demand for conformity to their approved rhetoric.
Attempting to read a bit more about gender identity and why it has risen to such to political prominence, I find that, via a basic web search, that this is a widely held view. IThe first few pages of my browser are fuil of independent right wing articles that echo these views.
I'm amazed at how these left wing activists, who have no manifest organised party political power in the USA and UK, can be so influential and exert such leverage on governments? This then leads me to question who gains from being forced down a path that will only open the doors to many other beliefs /thinking becoming hateful.
Observer editorial spot on re why the Scottish Government have called this wrong IMHO:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...droidApp_Other
A Swiss man has self identified as a woman and now apparently gets his pension a year earlier. 🤔
The key part of the articleQuote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
"But because reforming the Gender Recognition Act will affect another protected characteristic, sex, it is critically important that any proposals to reform it in the UK are informed by proper consultation with all those affected. That has not happened in Scotland. Instead, Nicola Sturgeon has simply denied such a conflict exists. Women raising legitimate concerns that opinion polls show are widely shared have been tarnished as “transphobic” by Scottish politicians.
This is politicians fomenting rather than diffusing contested debates. It has created a culture where women of the view that biological sex cannot be wholly replaced by gender identity in law – a belief itself protected by equalities legislation – get harassed out of jobs and visited by the police as a result of expressing lawful and legitimate views. Everyone loses: in a world where some people are bullied out of the democratic process of debate and consultation, it is impossible to build social consensus around the balancing of rights of two groups facing significant discrimination".
The women visited by Police (WTF was that about) is the person who made the statement I quoted a few posts ago. Given how hard it can be to get out thinly stretched Police to attend actual crimes (like bicycle theft/sale where a person has identified their bike for sale on Gumtree and the like), I just find it unbelievable that the (admittedly reluctant Polis) can find time to indulge this pish.
Much as I support Independence, I'm not a fan of Sturgeon and the SNP.
That bit isn't correct. There have been 2 consultations so far; the second of which attracted the highest number of responses that there has been for any SG consultation.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
The point of these consultations is, as it says, to consult and amend draft legislation if appropriate. That process is continuing, and will continue through committees until such times as the debate gets to Parliament.
Who was consulted? I haven't seen reference to this, although perhaps this has been discussed on here before. I will be straight onto the Observer to point this out. Here's hoping that common sense prevails, or that some SNP MSP's refuse to toe the party line.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm intrigued by how some issues get a public hearing in this way and others never make it to any meaningful consultation. I confess to having little understanding of how politics at Holyrood operates and what drives it. Was this part of the SNP manifesto for example? These are many issues that I suspect are much more burning for the average man/woman (should that be person?) yet they aren't on the agenda for consultation and legislative change (like a national energy company or encroachment on to green belt for housing, failure to address the lack of social housing).
Everyone :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
It's a public process, and anyone with a view (from anywhere, not just Scotland) can contribute. The results of the second consultation are here:-
https://www.gov.scot/publications/ge...tion-exercise/
Just because the SG had a particular proposal, doesn't mean that will become law. That's the point of the exercise.
The Observer did also say thisQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
"The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is the statutory regulator of the Equality Act. Last week, it told the Scottish government that its proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which allows trans people to change the way their sex is recorded for legal purposes, should be paused because the consultation on these changes has not adequately taken into account their impact on women’s sex-based rights. The Scottish government is proposing to move to a system whereby people can change their sex for legal purposes through self-declaration, instead of needing a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria".
They imply that the Scottish Government's consultations weren't allowing other viewpoints to be fully heard.
The consultation said this;
Those broadly opposed to a statutory declaration-based system
"These respondents generally thought a convincing case for change has not been made, and that the current system is broadly fit for purpose. This was often connected to a view that the draft Bill should simply be scrapped and to specific concerns about the removal of the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before receiving a GRC. These respondents were often very concerned about the potential impact of the proposed changes on society in general, but on the safety and wellbeing of women and girls in particular. They generally disagreed with reducing the age at which a person can apply for legal gender recognition to 16.
This was the perspective of many individual respondents and the considerable majority of the Women's Groups and Religious or Belief Bodies that responded"
Is the Observer deliberately misleading it's readers on this issue?
I have no idea. The process is transparent, so I'm not sure why they would do.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
But the implication underlined in bold is just plain wrong.
Noticed the times have removed this article and issued a correction (not for the first time btw) :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Do you have the text of the correction?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Grieves
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corrections-and-clarifications-5phnn0xh2Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Our article “Police interview charity chief after tweet ending referrals to rape centre” (Jan 29) and subsequent articles reported that Police Scotland interviewed Nicola Murray, the head of the Brodie’s Trust domestic abuse support group, about a reported hate crime. The police have now confirmed she was not the subject of a complaint or investigation.
Ta.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Grieves
I'm now curious as to how this story arose. It won't be the last time that such nonsense happens.
Having dug a bit, it does appear that the woman was visited by the police, but it sounds like a story that happened down south which was recorded as a non-crime hate incident.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Its looks like she has made her twitter private. She claims to run a domestic abuse charity, but it doesn't appear on the charity register. She was also in the paper about not wearing a mask because of ptsd.
Smells grifty.
The Telegraph and the Record still have the story up.Quote:
Originally Posted by 500miles
Brodies Trust is definitely not registered with OSCR.That in itself could warrant a visit from the polis 😏
The sad thing is that, like a lot of stuff, this just detracts from the actual debate.
There is a tonne of grifting around this subject. From trans teens inventing sob stories with gofundme's which disappear as quickly as they appear, to right wingers pretending to cate about women's rights and every social and political point in between.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I've not come across such a divisive issue where awful people are spread so evenly. I'd expected them to exclusively coalesce around recycled homophobia as usual, but apparently not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Grieves
I'm quoting your post because I can't access the link as posted. Usually when it's quoted it becomes accessible for me.
Bordie's Trust may well be a not for profit organisation and they don't have to be a registered charity to operate as such (although they miss out on benefits associate with being one). I looked at the OSCR and also at their Facebook page and it does say "charitable organisation" on it. They don't appear to have a website. Perhaps they should change the wording to not for profit?
They say this..."We are a small unregistered charity and operate as a support group for women who have lost babies through domestic violence or forced termination. We do one to one and group support as appropriate, we offer advocacy, help with housing and benefits applications, support through the court process or reporting to the police if they choose to do so. Also practical help such as emergency groceries, power card top up, and essentials packs for new tenancy (pots & pans, utensils, plates, cutlery, bedding etc) where a service user has qualified for a community grant. It’s all very well getting a bed but you can’t sleep in it without bedding- or cook your tea without a pot.
We are not currently accepting donations but will be doing a new just giving appeal probably next month.
The best way to support our work at the moment is to like the page, share it, get the word out that we are here for the women who need us.
Our petition to the Scottish Parliament is currently under consideration with the committee having written to various organisations for their views ahead of the next stage- we are fairly optimistic that they will progress with it. Fingers crossed.
They need to get themselves proper advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
They can't call themselves an "unregistered charity". There is no such thing.
If they want to do the valuable work they do, they should get themselves registered. Otherwise, they'll struggle to attract funding and may find themselves in bother with OSCR.
EHRC facing a legal challenge for being excessively influenced by the UK government. It looks like their stance on GRA changed when Liz Truss made "politically motivated" appointments to the EHRC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60331962
Vice has been running a couple of stories recently about the politicisation of the EHRC. Whether these are part of a smear campaign remains to be seen, but if they have any substance, it does undermine a lot of their good work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Grieves
The EHRC (see Labour anti semitism inquiry) is now a Tory Government front organisation, presumably done so because for years the right have been complaining that human rights and race relations have been a front for leftists. I think we’re at the point now where the civil service is so infested with appointees that the previous and genuine ‘public good’ culture that existed in the UK civil service is being badly eroded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Grieves
A lot of people angry about this who scoffed at the idea the EHRC would ever be politically influenced when it came to the Labour antisemitism investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Grieves
Like most of my complaints on the topic, I'm just wanting consistency from people on the issues surrounding it.
Not related, but I think similar about the whole parties in Downing St nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Wanting the police involved, to hand out £20 fines or whatever to Boris and co is a total waste of time and money.
We've turned into a nation of grasses though. We're all meant to run and tell tales as quickly as possible these days.
Even better if you can post on Twitter to demonstrate how much of a good citizen you are.
The story turned out to be false.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60420339
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The police confirmed she wasn't under investigation, but they still visited her?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The Police have been reported to the EHRC for their statement and inaccurate information giving associated with the statement they made linked to this matter.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/police-...-equality-law/
"
In a comment to the Times, Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie said “Hate crime and discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable”.
With regards to discrimination, this statement made on behalf of Police Scotland is inaccurate and misleading. The Equality Act 2010 sets out that discrimination can be lawful when that discrimination is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The statement made by Police Scotland that “discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable” conveys the meaning to the public that service providers who lawfully discriminate on the grounds of sex are themselves deplorable, and it suggests that use of the single-sex exceptions is in some way unlawful.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/police-...-equality-law/
Police misrepresenting the law in this way is a serious matter. The idea that service providers are in any way deplorable and acting unlawfully is likely to foster bad relations between potential service users who are included and those who are excluded, as well as fostering bad relations with the service provider itself. It is also reasonable to expect this police statement would have a ‘chilling effect’ on other service providers who wish to lawfully provide female-only services. Thus, fettering the ability of service providers to choose the most appropriate, and least discriminatory, service to their target service users.
That statement is dated 30th January. It refers to the Times article which was later withdrawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Yes, but the withdrawal of the article doesn't mean the Police didn't visit her? They said she wasn't or hadn't been under investigation, which is what she also said they told her.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Either way, the Police statement is fundamentally wrong and worryingly misinformed.
Scottish govt loses court battle over legal definition of women:
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,s...ition-of-women
The GRA bill is coming to the Parliament this week.
by Mandy Rhodes
27 February 2022
@HolyroodMandy
Editor's Column: The Right to Be
It’s been a confusing time for sex. And that’s not me oversharing. But with the definitions of ‘sex’, ‘gender’ and indeed that of ‘woman’ itself now being battled out in court, we have only just traversed the outer edges of a toxic, but so far fringe, debate.
And as it has set us on a course for an argument fallaciously framed as being either pro- or anti-trans, we are about to see it get even more febrile as it breaks into the mainstream, with the Scottish Government making the case for the reform of the Gender Recognition Act.
For some of us, there has been a long and painful rehearsal to get to this point. Four years of deep introspection, emotional turmoil and complex argument that has already torn natural allies apart.
A time when invisible walls between longstanding contacts have been erected. When well-established relationships have become fractured. When reputations have been trashed, and livelihoods threatened.
When damaging and vexatious complaints have been made. When some of the most powerful legislators in the land have spoken behind closed doors but publicly failed to stand up for what they believed in or to defend those they should have stood squarely behind. A time of being ghosted by previously close contacts. And a time when you could start to feel a chill.
A dark, regressive time when arguments about whether biology even mattered or that a feeling of ‘just being’ should take precedence over a material reality.
A time when dependable champions for equality, who would normally argue from a platform of intellect and sense, turned into myopic bullies who shut down legitimate argument with a stinging rebuke of ‘transphobe’, and refused to engage in a challenge.
A time of deep contradictions. A time when, as a society, we woke up to the hellish lived experience of women and girls and their exhausting daily battle to keep safe from men. But at the same time, argued for the lifting of what meagre sex-based safeguards already existed.
A time when we were forced to question the very existence of biology, encouraged to use gender neutral terms around uniquely female specific practices like breast feeding, mothering and menstruation. And yet we ignored the disconnect of that argument when condemning practices like female genital mutilation, sex trafficking and forced marriage, where being female was the only determining factor for the victims.
A time when the UK’s statutory regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, could be branded a ‘hate group’ and reported to the United Nations on the basis of “revelations, if true” that it had prepared guidance that could prevent trans people from using single-sex spaces. Something which it categorically denied. But where the “if true” carried a lot of heavy lifting, even among Scottish Government ministers.
And when Police Scotland had to review a policy that would potentially allow male rapists to identify as women.
A time, to be frank, when fantasy has been indulged. Disinformation bandied around. Statistics manipulated and mangled. Truth stretched. And when crass comparisons have been made by high-profile politicians between people who are ‘intersex’, which they, incidentally, failed to properly define, with people who have red hair, to simply make a crass point about percentages and the right of ‘ginger people’ to exist.
This is no time for cheap laughs.
A time when, bizarrely, even some trans people find themselves labelled transphobic for refusing to bow down to a gender ideology that says you can actually physically change your sex, when you can’t.
And a time when concerns expressed by women were extraordinarily dismissed as ‘not valid’ by the First Minister. And their cries of protest were pronounced as evidence of radicalisation and ignorance.
We are still to be told how expanding the pool of people that can legally declare themselves to be women, which is what the government will propose by removing any medical gatekeeping to a Gender Recognition Certificate, cannot impinge on the rights currently held by the women they were designed for under the UK Equality Act. But that will be for the First Minister to explain.
Arguably, there has never been a more divisive piece of legislation put before the Scottish Parliament. The rows over Section 28 (2a in Scotland) and the debates around equal marriage just do not compare.
And the narrative that says they are the same is a false one. An Aunt Sally constructed to silence critics by dint of an association with what was once a torrid time.
But embracing the rights of a human being to love who they want, to marry who they want, and to have those same legal protections as anyone else, gay or straight, is a fundamental of equality. And ones which trans people already have.
Women in Scotland are seeing their rights eroded while at the same time being told that ‘trans lives are not up for debate’ when theirs already are.
I know no one that doesn’t agree that a process that allows someone to legally identify in the gender in which they wish to live their lives could be done with more respect, dignity and support. Indeed, polling shows that to be the case. So, the question that hangs is why, when there is broad consensus for reform, has self-ID, which does not get the same public support, become such a totemic issue for the Scottish Government?
It’s not even the most pressing of demands for trans people. Better health provision is.
And I get that the First Minister wants another first. She wants Scotland to be seen as a beacon of truly progressive policies. And if not the first in the world, then at least the first across these islands. But does she really want that to happen at the expense of women’s rights, of increased division, and of good law?
Call me cynical, but in the same way that the Scottish Parliament was found to have breached its legal powers by the Supreme Court at the end of last year, for attempting to incorporate into Scots law the statutes within the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the First Minister, as she did then around children’s rights, could always then blame Westminster for not allowing her to advance the cause of equality for trans people. It’s a thought
That's a well written piece.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
A time of deep contradictions. A time when, as a society, we woke up to the hellish lived experience of women and girls and their exhausting daily battle to keep safe from men. But at the same time, argued for the lifting of what meagre sex-based safeguards already existed.
The article (posted above) is well presented, but it seems to me it falls into a very divisive trap of labelling and generalising when it comes to women and their daily lived experience with men.
Speaking personally, woman and girls have no need to fight a daily battle to keep safe from me. Stereotyping all men is just as dangerous a road to go down as the predatory misogyny that the author is referring to.
It’s really not and while you’re right that it’s not literally every man, it is potentially any man so from a woman’s perspective, unless she knows you, then unfortunately you and I need to live with being tarred with that brush until all men sort themselves out.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
I have two daughters and two sisters, as well as a wife. Their lives experiences are littered with predatory and unpleasant experiences of men, and that’s everything from being ignored at a garage or a DIY shop (amongst others), to having daily instances of men - strangers - making comments, wolf-whistling from cars or vans, being followed, being pestered on the bus or train, the list is almost endless.
It’s a million miles away from being anywhere near as dangerous as the oratory misogyny the author refers to.
Sorry, that is stereotyping. You know that not all women share those views, neither do all feminists. What you said about the experiences of women you know is sad, but it's anecdotal. My anecdotal view is that these behaviours are still present, but nowhere near as pervasive as they once were. I'm not keen on the "potentially any man" stuff either, whether the woman knows you or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
When you say "oratory misogyny", you are probably referring to the transgender rights activists that, for example, are describing women's right to a single gender safe space ?
No. “Oratory” was my phone deciding I wanted that word instead of the word i typed, which was “predatory”.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
With the greatest of respect, it’s irrelevant whether you’re keen on it or not, from women’s (and not every single woman because that would be a ridiculous statement) perspective, any man is a potential threat.
I was brought up with “never talk to strangers” - the strangers in question where never women. That’s not to say women aren’t capable, but you know, if a bad thing was going to happen to you there’s a massive difference in the chances of that bad thing happening to you at the hands of a man than at the hands of a female.
I doubt any of us would want to be considered a potential threat, but we are.
With regards to being anecdotal, of course they are, however i can extend those anecdotes to female friends, female colleagues, extended family. They’ve all experienced it.
It’s absolutely not stereotyping to say that as men, some women will find you you and I a threat on some level, now that could be completely contextual and it could be on a very small scale, but it’s true.
We teach our daughters to watch out for it from a young age.
I don't think that an ultra feminist perspective on gender relationships and male abuse of power is the only valid opinion. A women's perspective of the world must be a very narrow and fearful one if they were all to view men (would that include, gay men, disabled men, transgender men ?) as a potential threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
As a man, a woman can view me anyway they choose, but as a starting point to that perception, viewing me as a potential threat on the basis of my gender is straying into discriminatory cliché and stereotyping (along the lines of all men are potential rapists). It is also very disempowering and would seem to me to undermine all the progress we have made around gender and addressing male abuse of power. There has been an enormous shift in my lifetime. Yes, there are still pockets of male entitled stupidity, but it's being eroded.
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world.
How would a woman, for example, walking alone at night be able to differentiate between a gay man and a straight man who was walking behind or towards her?Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Context is important as well, which i mentioned, It’s highly unlikely that if your first encounter with a woman is at a kid’s birthday party where you’re there with your wife and kid, and there are other families around, that she’ll find you a threat at all. Or at a job interview etc.
If her first encounter with you was on a secluded path, then it’s likely she’d be weary, or meeting you for a first date. That’s why a lot of women feel that they need to tell a friend where they’re going and who they’re meeting and agree to phone to let them know they’re ok.
It’s not your fault, it’s not her fault, but her experiences of men (other men) will have informed how she views you in that context.
Just while it popped into my head, you asked about disabled men as well - without going into names because that’s not appropriate here, there was very recently a lot of focus on a disabled guy who was repeatedly using inappropriate sexually graphic language to girls on something like Tik Tok - it was something where they could pair up and chat to each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
I’m clearly not saying that’s representative of all disabled people or of all girls’ experiences, but it’s another example of women having to be weary of men’s behaviour. There wasn’t anything to indicate this guy was a threat before the interaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
Are our Wives, Partners, Mothers, Daughters and female friends really all living " a hellish daily experience" or "fighting and exhausting daily battle to keep themselves safe from men"?
It's not something that I identify with as based in reality for the women I know well. I suspect all women will have experienced casual sexism and misogyny, but is it really like a never ending battle for survival?
Maybe she could qualify the men part by calling them predatory or emotionally damaged men. What % of men have to indulge in sexist, misogynistic or threatening behaviours before we can reasonably just casually apply those descriptions to 50% of the human race?
We know that some people carry out atrocities in the name of religion, but we would never brand all adherents of a particular faith as terrorists just because some lunatic fringes carrying out appalling acts. On that basis is it OK to judge all men against the behaviours of some?
I think my objections to stereotyping still stand, particularly when the context whereby the writer is presenting a wider argument about discrimination and rights.
It's an interesting conversation, though provoking.
You're the only who thinks that is what is being said on this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Your first paragraph is spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Some utterly ridiculous and quite frankly dangerous views on this thread.
Which views are dangerous?Quote:
Originally Posted by Since90+2
Thanks for the insight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Is anyone else claiming this?Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Claiming what? You may not have noticed, but it’s a discussion and people offer a view. I have contributed to this thread since it begun and the conversation has been wide ranging. That said, it’s not one that’s grabbing the same level of attention as , let’s say the Ukraine one. Therefore to say no one else shares my view is odd, when we n fact the only two contributors engaged in the discussion were Matty and I. If you have a view on trans rights or the wider issues of women and male abuse of power, let’s hear them. Otherwise, what’s the point of your posts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Fair enough. Matty said..Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
I think that is quite right in certain circumstances even more so.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
“Are our Wives, Partners, Mothers, Daughters and female friends really all living " a hellish daily experience" or "fighting and exhausting daily battle to keep themselves safe from men"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Do you really believe that describes day to day life for the average Scottish woman. No one is denying there is male abuse of power or that women may rightly perceive threat or feel anxiety with regard to men in certain circumstances.
I doubt that's a daily experience for a lot of women but more than probably for some.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Where I think Matty is correct is where he says women should think of any man as a threat in certain circumstances. They aren't "stereotyping" anyone, they are just keeping on their toes in case the man walking towards them, say late at night, is a nutter.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
So, after actually reading what was said , it turns out that you share my views then :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Matty introduced the bit about threat and circumstances, not me. No one denied that there are situations where women might feel frightened or intimidated, or that harassment and casual sexism and misogyny happen (perhaps more frequently than some men may care to acknowledge)
My point was that it was a gross exaggeration to say that women live a hellish experience or fight a daily battle to keep safe from men. The context was discussing an article about rights, discrimination and gender. I agreed with just about everything the writer said in respect of the self-assigned gender discussion, but found it bizarre that she introduced a few lines which to me stereotyped men and at the same time disempowered women.
Attitudes have shifted lots in my lifetime. When I was a boy (60's and 70's), a man could beat his wife and the Police weren’t interested, unless it amounted to GBH. Women weren’t paid equally and mainstream culture embraced male chauvinism. Things have moved on a bit since then, albeit there are still issues around equality, male privilege and discrimination.
FWIW, my point has never been about disempowering women. This is a male issue rather than a female one.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
While I agree that there’s more than a touch of hyperbole being used by the author, I don’t think it’s in any way unreasonable to suggest that women have to consider the behaviour of men in every day life- irrespective of whether or not that behaviour materialises on any given day.
No, I'm talking disempowerment and the authors views. Disempowering and divisive, in terms of recognising the progress of women's movement. Not just disempowering for women There are many men who support the women's rights and without their input and support, it would surely be a lost cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
Without wishing to deflect too much from the Trans Rights discussion, ultra feminist views are not necessarily representative of the whole feminist movement. Many recognise the importance of inclusivity and recognition of how men also suffer under the Patriarchy.
The points aren’t mutually exclusive though.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
I’m not sure that the author is talking down the progress of the women’s movement by highlighting that women still have to deal with a load of unnecessary crap from men but the trans issue itself potential undermines that progress.
I’m not even sure I’d agree that acknowledging women have to make regular adjustments or considerations to allow for men’s behaviours is a particularly feminist view.
It’s a truism. Obvious to anyone that cares to look.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
Women constantly have to review their choices to account for their safety.
It’s oppressive……and that’s without even getting to the issue about their voices being shut down when they raise such issues.
Yes, women deal with lots of unnecessary crap, but it’s still not equating to a daily battle to keep safe or hellish experience, which was my point to begin with. TBF, you did, eventually, acknowledge that that statement was unhelpful hyperbole.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
Earlier, I made the point that it’s not only women who have a stake in voicing an opinion on the trans rights- gender self identification question. Men are invested in this too, yet the main voices in the debate seem very polarised and to come mostly from women or men that self identify as women. Why is that that?
I also said that ultra feminist dogma ( is it really necessary to launch a hand grenade castigating and scapegoating all men when discussing the erosion of women’s rights through the proposed legislation?) is divisive. My belief is that these kind of views aren’t necessarily representative of women in general ( or even feminists in general).
So, now that we all agree that women can still be subject to male harassment, casual misogyny, discrimination in the work place, bullying in the home, can we move on to why we are having a legislative based approach to promoting gender self-identification from the Scottish government? I would also be interested to hear people’s views on why there are so few male voices being heard in the debate?
The Bill is being tabled in Parliament today.
It seems that only the Tories, as a party, are against reforms.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-60589578
Seems like that on here as well. [emoji6]Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainm...cid=entnewsntp
This is where we are heading.
"Kate Grimes, who has a history of transforming troubled hospitals, was told not to waste her time applying for the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust as her belief in biological sex was “not a viewpoint” they want.
The Tavistock has now been accused of breaking equality law by discriminating against those with gender-critical beliefs, just months after the appeal court ruled it was protected under the Equality Act".
In a letter to the Health Secretary, Ms Grimes said that the trust was “exacerbating its governance failures – and breaking the law – by refusing to interview anyone who believes biological sex cannot be changed”.
Excluding those with gender-critical beliefs created “a very significant danger of skewed thinking” and if it was applied across the trust then it would be “indoctrination at an organisational level”, she said. Ms Grimes told the Telegraph that patient safety was at risk if “clinicians are working from a belief system rather than evidence-based care”.
She said that it was “perfectly possible to support and care for children with gender dysphoria without believing it is literally possible to change biological sex”.
“I believe that there are only two sexes and that sex is immutable. While I fully respect trans people’s right to live their lives free from discrimination, I do not believe that they can literally change sex”, she wrote.
In the reply, seen by this newspaper and sent to Mr Javid, she was told not to waste time applying as “your views on sex being immutable is not a viewpoint that the trust would wish any of their non-executives to hold”.
The senior consultant added that it would be “one of the questions I will be asking candidates at first stage interview”.
Peter Daly, an employment lawyer at Doyle Clayton who acted in the recent appeal in which it was clarified that gender-critical beliefs are a protected, said: “The belief that sex is immutable is a central aspect of those beliefs.
“An employer which refuses to employ somebody because they hold gender critical beliefs is acting unlawfully in precisely the same way as it would be unlawful to refuse to employ someone because of their age, race, sex, disability or gender reassignment status.”
Well done to the trust!Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
You can't employ someone who doesn't believe in the work that you do.
I don't think you read the article. It has nothing to do with the work she would be carrying out there. It's based on an over-arching and potentially discriminatory trust policy. So, if you don't think "correctly", we won't employ you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Do we really need questionnaires pre -employment to establish your beliefs, particularly when your work isn't actually relevant to gender self identity issues.
Firstly, I replied before you posted the full article, as it was behind a paywall and could only read the first couple of paragraphs.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Second, I stand by what I said. If you want to head up a hospital trust which is helping the traumatic transition for transgender people then you surely have to believe in what they do.
FWIW, I know someone in Fife who moved to Scotland from the south of England for an easier transition from female to male. Something that has been forgotten about in the thread is transgender transition works both ways.
Yes, the NHS trust in question has a national gender identity clinic, amongst the many other things it offers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
For a Chairperson and non executive directors posts, and extending that rationale, would beliefs need questioned on a whole range of other social issues too, or is only views on gender and biological determinism that matter (she has never said she opposes transitioning, just that she believes there are only two genders)?
Would we extend the questionnaire to, let's say someone's beliefs on termination if trust offered abortions from one of their clinics? (which they will do). IF she was applying to run the gender identity clinic, I can understand that her beliefs might be seen as being in conflict, that could never happen though........
Interestingly, the thing that piqued my interest in the whole issue was the appointment of a man, who self identifies as a woman, to the role as CEO of the Rape Crisis Centre in Edinburgh. He has since gone onto to publicly criticise people who publicly oppose his appointment (women-not just her from The Brodies Trust) using some very inflammatory language.
That's the crux of this whole discussion. Whose rights prevail and why some rights seem to be more righteous than others.
FWIW, I also have a family member who has successfully transitioned, through surgery and medication. I'm all for adults having the right to be considered for this kind of treatment.
A CEO wouldn’t really be working with victims so it shouldn’t really matter, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They're not 'against' reform. They believe, however, that women's rights should be paramount when considering such changes. A view shared by many.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The highest profile split over this issue is within the SNP.
Isn’t “against reform” pretty much a literal translation of conservatism?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
There are so few male voices being heard in the debate (ironic, given that(I suspect) this thread is almost exclusively male voices) because biological males are not having their rights and perceived safety impacted in the same way that biological females are.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
If a trans-man wants to compete in sport, they are not gaining an advantage over biological men. It’s very unlikely (though not impossible, admittedly) that a trans-man is a threat to other men in terms of sexual violence or sexual misbehaviour and so on.
Because of the issues discussed in this thread already, there’s significantly less impact (virtually none) on men when a woman wants to transition to a man - if they self identify as a man and want to use male-only spaces, what’s the risk to the men there already?
It’s why the challenges are driven by women worried about their rights and why men are the less heard voices.
Did the splitters not leave to join (that well known defender of womens' rights :confused:) Salmond?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Not aware that those who joined Alba did so over this issue? The highest profile SNP figure to go against the party line was Joanna Cherry. I was never a fan of hers but the abuse she took (often from within her own party) over her stance was outrageous and took a toll on her health.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
For anyone still questioning the need to change the law.
https://news.stv.tv/opinion/this-is-...self-id-scheme
While this issue is a big deal for a tiny amount of people, it does seem strange that those against it think that it’s implementation in Scotland will be disastrous in a way that it’s not in Ireland? Do they think Scots trans people are different in some way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've been convinced that the GRA isn't really the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I do have an issue with us institutionalising gender and innate and separate from sex. The same way as I have with us institutionalising creationism, Christian science or any other ideas which conflict with identifiable, measurable reality.
I've noticed that council emails from cis people have thier pronouns in the signature. This should not be the default, its like me starting all my emails with "Shalom".
That’s a good article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
I find the situation to be very complex, and I’m still not entirely sure where i sit with it.
On a very basic level, I support trans-rights, I have no skin in the game as to dictating to others how they should live their lives, and there’s definitely a need to protect and include the trans community.
Where those rights impact the rights of others - particularly women - is where I find it harder to legitimise a blanket approach, but i’m well aware that if you take the position of “a trans man/woman is a man/woman” (delete as appropriate) then they have the exact same rights as a biological man/woman, which has the potential to cause issues, as we’ve seen in sport and in some sensitive sex-based situations.
I consider myself to be a tolerant guy, I believe people should have the right to live as they want so long as it’s not at the expense of others. I don’t care if someone’s gay, bi, straight, trans, whatever - they’re people. The main thing i’m getting from this discussion is a better understanding of the issues, which is a good thing.
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...6-N4-X0bA&s=19
JK Rowling has her say.
Looking forward to the weirdly sexual death threats on twitter from shan haircuts and furries.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
https://www.iflscience.com/brain/bor...young-age/all/
Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk
Think it was a response to a very personal article by Susan Dalgetty. I tried to link it but it wouldn't play ballQuote:
Originally Posted by James310
Yes it was, this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysGot2
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinio...algety-3596504
Thanks for the link. Makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Science will eventually prove that gender isn't simply that what does or doesn't dangle between our legs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk
It isn't that now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
That's your sex?
I read the Dalgety piece you mention. As you say extremely personal. Underlines why this issue is so much more meaningful than many believe and that the likes of the FM seem unable to grasp its implications. Good, measured support from Rowling (as ever), though as someone else has pointed out she'll doubtless take a deluge of flak for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysGot2
I saw no support for the trans rights from Rowling in that tweet from her!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
It's taken society thousands of years to understand that sexuality isn't just about sex, so we might have to wait a while.😏Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg