The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Support often involves some form of re-education. When somebody has been though such a high level of trauma, it's not uncommon for them to lose control over multiple aspects of their life as a result. Addressing the emotional impact is only one aspect of the support that is often required.

---

Jeez. Your equating trauma support to being re-educated that your wish to have biological female support is wrong. This is highly offensive

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...gn=uk_politics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bristolhibby

This all happened before the GRB was passed.

No impact. Like I said, rapists are going to rape.

J

---

The GRB sees being a woman as an identity category rather than the reality of biological sex. This is why the GRB is a threat to woman only spaces. All a male at 16 would need to do is fill in the self-ID form and wait in their bedroom for 3 months as there is no need for applicants to have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, the said male can then legally enter the ladies shower room at Meadowbank for example this could be done for voyeurism or more sadistic motives, either way it wouldn't make women feel more safe this is for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

You seem to have a real problem with criticism of anything that's remotely related to the Scottish Government or SNP.

---

No, I have a problem with what I perceive to be ignorant posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Jeez. Your equating trauma support to being re-educated that your wish to have biological female support is wrong. This is highly offensive

---

Wishing to have biological female support isn't wrong. Automatically assuming that a transgender female would be incapable of carrying out the same job or that they would pose a danger to the victim is wrong, not to mention highly offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Wishing to have biological female support isn't wrong. Automatically assuming that a transgender female would be incapable of carrying out the same job or that they would pose a danger to the victim is wrong, not to mention highly offensive.

---

It doesn't have to be danger though. Why can't a person have same sex care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Wishing to have biological female support isn't wrong. Automatically assuming that a transgender female would be incapable of carrying out the same job or that they would pose a danger to the victim is wrong, not to mention highly offensive.

---

Your first sentence would have the person classed as transphobic and needing re-educated by some. The second as far I see no one has said?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

The GRB sees being a woman as an identity category rather than the reality of biological sex. This is why the GRB is a threat to woman only spaces. All a male at 16 would need to do is fill in the self-ID form and wait in their bedroom for 3 months as there is no need for applicants to have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, the said male can then legally enter the ladies shower room at Meadowbank for example this could be done for voyeurism or more sadistic motives, either way it wouldn't make women feel more safe this is for sure.

---

Ok, I'm going to ask this again for the umpteenth time on this thread and for the last time as going around in circles and getting no answer is becoming tiresome.

Why on earth would a sexual predator wait 3 whole months in order to gain legal access to women only spaces, only to then do something illegal, when they can just enter illegally anyway?

Sexual predators do not require a GRB to enter female spaces. They just go ahead and do it anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Wishing to have biological female support isn't wrong. Automatically assuming that a transgender female would be incapable of carrying out the same job or that they would pose a danger to the victim is wrong, not to mention highly offensive.

---

Every victim is different and their wishes and wants have to be paramount in their recovery

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Your first sentence would have the person classed as transphobic and needing re-educated by some. The second as far I see no one has said?

---

The word "re-educated" wasn't even used. They used the term "re-frame", which is a very common practice in trauma therapy to help victims move on from their ordeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

The word "re-educated" wasn't even used. They used the term "re-frame", which is a very common practice in trauma therapy to help victims move on from their ordeal.

---

Once again clutching at straws. The reframing she was talking about was changing a rape victims opinion on wanting female only rape care, not dealing with their trauma. Vile and pretty repugnant that you are defending it.

Why the f would you spend time changing someone's opinions on trans issues just after they have been raped. Absolutely weirdo of a person she is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Ok, I'm going to ask this again for the umpteenth time on this thread and for the last time as going around in circles and getting no answer is becoming tiresome.

Why on earth would a sexual predator wait 3 whole months in order to gain legal access to women only spaces, only to then do something illegal, when they can just enter illegally anyway?

Sexual predators do not require a GRB to enter female spaces. They just go ahead and do it anyway.

---

Sexual predators are devious and cunning, from my experience they can be organised and patient. There are many refuges that are female only with lots of vulnerable women. What a great opportunity to gain access.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

The word "re-educated" wasn't even used. They used the term "re-frame", which is a very common practice in trauma therapy to help victims move on from their ordeal.

---

The context was that if rape victims wanted women only spaces and wouldn't accept a biological male was a woman then they were bigoted and would be 'challenged on their predudices'. Is there nothing about that concerns you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickhibby

Every victim is different and their wishes and wants have to be paramount in their recovery

---

Not according to Edinburgh rape crisis Scotland

You are all arguing points that have been debated and voted on already in the Scottish Parliament. That won’t be changed now.
All that matters now is if Alistair Jack has put forward a legal case that holds. Has he?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

You are all arguing points that have been debated and voted on already in the Scottish Parliament. That won’t be changed now.
All that matters now is if Alistair Jack has put forward a legal case that holds. Has he?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

The courts will decide. The test is just noise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Once again clutching at straws. The reframing she was talking about was changing a rape victims opinion on wanting female only rape care, not dealing with their trauma. Vile and pretty repugnant that you are defending it.

Why the f would you spend time changing someone's opinions on trans issues just after they have been raped. Absolutely weirdo of a person she is

---

Wadhwa also told The Guilty Feminist podcast that rape survivors could “reframe” their trauma and have “a more positive relationship with it”.

She was referring to their trauma, not their negative assumptions about transgender people. You've taken her comments out of context in order to manufacture a grievance.

Which is ironic, because it very much falls into the category of negative assumptions that people make about transgender people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickhibby

Sexual predators are devious and cunning, from my experience they can be organised and patient. There are many refuges that are female only with lots of vulnerable women. What a great opportunity to gain access.

---

This doesn't make any sense. It's not as if Scotland is a place where we have security guards standing outside women's toilets and changing rooms to assess who can enter and who can't. There's literally nothing to stop a man from walking directly into such a place and committing a sexual assault. This was the case before the GRA and will still be the case after it. Male sexual predators don't gain some additional advantage by waiting 3 months to have a gender recognition change. It doesn't allow them to do anything that they can't do already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Wadhwa also told The Guilty Feminist podcast that rape survivors could “reframe” their trauma and have “a more positive relationship with it”.

She was referring to their trauma, not their negative assumptions about transgender people. You've take her comments out of context in order to manufacture a grievance.

Which is ironic, because it very much falls into the category of negative assumptions that people make about transgender people.

---

Are you ok with the stated view that people who are raped and want single sex spaces and care are bigoted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

This doesn't make any sense. It's not as if Scotland is a place where we have security guards standing outside women's toilets and changing rooms to assess who can enter and who can't. There's literally nothing to stop a man from walking directly into such a place and committing a sexual assault. This was the case before the GRA and will still be the case after it. Male sexual predators don't gain some additional advantage by waiting 3 months to have a gender recognition change. It doesn't allow them to do anything that they can't do already.

---

A GRC obtained by self ID doesn't exist in Scotland today so you can't say it doesn't allow them to do anything they can't do already when the thing you are talking about doesn't even exist today. How do you know what a man in possession of a self ID GRC will or will not do? You can't as nobody has one today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Are you ok with the stated view that people who are raped and want single sex spaces and care are bigoted?

---

No i'm not. But then again, that's not the view that was stated. It was simply pointed out that even victims of sexual assault can harbour bigoted views. She didn't say that vulnerable women who wish to have a biological female support worker were bigots. Nowhere in her comments was such a connection made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

This doesn't make any sense. It's not as if Scotland is a place where we have security guards standing outside women's toilets and changing rooms to assess who can enter and who can't. There's literally nothing to stop a man from walking directly into such a place and committing a sexual assault. This was the case before the GRA and will still be the case after it. Male sexual predators don't gain some additional advantage by waiting 3 months to have a gender recognition change. It doesn't allow them to do anything that they can't do already.

---

Visited many women’s refuges? I know of some that even a male Dr cannot enter, however a man with a certificate can be granted access. As I mentioned earlier, it is not genuine transgender people that concern me, it’s deviants who could use this legislation to their advantage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Ok, I'm going to ask this again for the umpteenth time on this thread and for the last time as going around in circles and getting no answer is becoming tiresome.

Why on earth would a sexual predator wait 3 whole months in order to gain legal access to women only spaces, only to then do something illegal, when they can just enter illegally anyway?

Sexual predators do not require a GRB to enter female spaces. They just go ahead and do it anyway.

---

Maybe so they can see if there's an opportunity to do something illegal. They're not going to do something illegal if there are several women around so might just come back the next day and hope there's a single women. Is that not how predators operate? They wait for the right moment to strike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

No i'm not. But then again, that's not the view that was stated. It was simply pointed out that even victims of sexual assault can harbour bigoted views. She didn't say that vulnerable women who wish to have a biological female support worker were bigots. Nowhere in her comments was such a connection made.

---

So what bigoted views do you think were being referred to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

A GRC obtained by self ID doesn't exist in Scotland today so you can't say it doesn't allow them to do anything they can't do already when the thing you are talking about doesn't even exist today. How do you know what a man in possession of a self ID GRC will or will not do? You can't as nobody has one today.

---

You're right, it doesn't exist yet. But do you know what does exist? Men entering women only spaces and committing sexual crimes. No GRC required.

The idea that a sexual predator would wait 3 months for a GRC in order to do something that they can just go ahead and do regardless is beyond nonsensical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

You're right, it doesn't exist yet. But do you know what does exist? Men entering women only spaces and committing sexual crimes. No GRC required.

The idea that a sexual predator would wait 3 months for a GRC in order to do something that they can just go ahead and do regardless is beyond nonsensical.

---

All the more reason it shouldn't be made easier for them to enter women only spaces looking for opportunities and when there isn't one just moving onto to the next place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

You're right, it doesn't exist yet. But do you know what does exist? Men entering women only spaces and committing sexual crimes. No GRC required.

The idea that a sexual predator would wait 3 months for a GRC in order to do something that they can just go ahead and do regardless is beyond nonsensical.

---

I think you underestimate the lengths some predators would go to. Some men groom victims for years, a 3 month process that nobody checks anything on isn't going to bother them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickhibby

Visited many women’s refuges? I know of some that even a male Dr cannot enter, however a man with a certificate can be granted access. As I mentioned earlier, it is not genuine transgender people that concern me, it’s deviants who could use this legislation to their advantage

---

Why would a sexual deviant want to specifically target women's refuges when they have a multitude of options open to them anyway? Considering the small percentage of actual sexual abusers over society as a whole, what do you honestly think the likelihood is of a sexual abuser with no previous criminal convictions, waiting 3 months so they can pretend to be a woman, just so they can specifically target a women's refuge? I would say not very likely at all. It's not exactly a place where they'd be less likely to be caught, considering these are vulnerable women who have a close watch over them at all times to ensure their own safety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

All the more reason it shouldn't be made easier for them to enter women only spaces looking for opportunities and when there isn't one just moving onto to the next place.

---

It literally couldn't be any easier for them. There's nothing to prevent a man from simply walking into a female changing room and committing a sexual assault. A GRC doesn't offer them some special advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

I think you underestimate the lengths some predators would go to. Some men groom victims for years, a 3 month process that nobody checks anything on isn't going to bother them.

---

What length is that? A GRC doesn't allow them to do anything that they're already capable of doing without one. Some predators wait for the "right opportunity", but a GRC doesn't add anything to that opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

It literally couldn't be any easier for them. There's nothing to prevent a man from simply walking into a female changing room and committing a sexual assault. A GRC doesn't offer them some special advantage.



What length is that? A GRC doesn't allow them to do anything that they're already capable of doing without one. Some predators wait for the "right opportunity", but a GRC doesn't add anything to that opportunity.

---

We will just need to agree to disagree, you can't know that for certain as the self ID GRC doesn't exist today so you can't predict with confidence how men will use it for their advantage. It will give men more confidence to perhaps enter spaces they would not normally be confident entering if they have a GRC in their back pocket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

It literally couldn't be any easier for them. There's nothing to prevent a man from simply walking into a female changing room and committing a sexual assault. A GRC doesn't offer them some special advantage.opportunity.

---

So it isn't going to make it any easier for them to commit an offence?

[QUOTE=007;7236544]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

It literally couldn't be any easier for them. There's nothing to prevent a man from simply walking into a female changing room and committing a sexual assault. A GRC doesn't offer them some special advantage.

So it isn't going to make it any easier for them to commit an offence?

---

No

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Why would a sexual deviant want to specifically target women's refuges when they have a multitude of options open to them anyway? Considering the small percentage of actual sexual abusers over society as a whole, what do you honestly think the likelihood is of a sexual abuser with no previous criminal convictions, waiting 3 months so they can pretend to be a woman, just so they can specifically target a women's refuge? I would say not very likely at all. It's not exactly a place where they'd be less likely to be caught, considering these are vulnerable women who have a close watch over them at all times to ensure their own safety.

---

If you honestly believe that there is only a small percentage of sexual abusers in society then you are deluded, A lot of what you say about stranger attacks could be true about just doing what they feel like. However most predators gain their victims trust, groom them. My objection to this legislation was there was no checks or balances or someone obtaining this certificate and abusing it. The saddest part is those who wish to transition genuinely are the ones who will likely the one who come under the most scrutiny

[QUOTE=greenlex;7236547]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

No

---

And you and HarpOnHibee can 100% guarantee that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

We will just need to agree to disagree, you can't know that for certain as the self ID GRC doesn't exist today so you can't predict with confidence how men will use it for their advantage. It will give men more confidence to perhaps enter spaces they would not normally be confident entering if they have a GRC in their back pocket.

---

More confidence to carry out a sexual assault? More confidence to get their name on the sex offenders register? More confidence to go to jail?

Because of a piece of paper in their back pocket?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

So it isn't going to make it any easier for them to commit an offence?

---

Why would it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Why would it?

---

For the reasons I posted in reply to you earlier.

Can you 100% guarantee it won't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

For the reasons I posted in reply to you earlier.

Can you 100% guarantee it won't?

---

You didn't give reasons. You said something about a predator going away then returning the next day in the hope of there being only a single women present because they wouldn't do something illegal if there were several women around.

I don't see what that has to do with whether they have a Gender Recognition Certificate or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

You didn't give reasons. You said something about a predator going away then returning the next day in the hope of there being only a single women present because they wouldn't do something illegal if there were several women around.

I don't see what that has to do with whether they have a Gender Recognition Certificate or not.

---

And you didn't give a 100% guarantee it wouldn't make it any easier for them to commit an offence. You're happy to suggest it wouldn't but cannot 100% guarantee it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

All the more reason it shouldn't be made easier for them to enter women only spaces looking for opportunities and when there isn't one just moving onto to the next place.

---

Wouldn’t it be quicker and easier for them just to put a wig and dress on if this is really how sexual deviants are going to operate?

I’ve never seen anyone ID’d to enter a toilet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Wouldn’t it be quicker and easier for them just to put a wig and dress on if this is really how sexual deviants are going to operate?

I’ve never seen anyone ID’d to enter a toilet.

---

Notorious sticklers for paperwork though, are sexual predators.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Wouldn’t it be quicker and easier for them just to put a wig and dress on if this is really how sexual deviants are going to operate?

I’ve never seen anyone ID’d to enter a toilet.

---

Okay, you're suggesting there's a quicker and easier way for predators to operate so can you 100% guarantee they won't try and abuse the new law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Notorious sticklers for paperwork though, are sexual predators.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Ah, presumably you can give me a 100% guarantee they won't try and abuse the new law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

Okay, you're suggesting there's a quicker and easier way for predators to operate so can you 100% guarantee they won't try and abuse the new law?

---

In the same way I can’t 100% guarantee that the person opposite me at work hasn’t got themselves a job there to perv on people that pass our office window, no I can’t.

It seems like an unlikely scenario though. And I don’t see how this ‘new law’ enhances the potential efficiency of sexual predators.

On a more general point, and not in any way aimed at you to be clear: I wasn’t very sure where I stood on the whole debate, and wasn’t aware of much of the detail. Things do become a little clearer the more the usual suspects who want to find fault in anything connected to “Sturgeon” are putting forward their obsessive, and at times bizarre, arguments with no substance.

A sterling job as always.

[QUOTE=007;7236549]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenlex

And you and HarpOnHibee can 100% guarantee that?

---

In the same way you could guarantee it would?
Predators are predators and has been pointed out they don’t need the piece of paper to be just that.

Police, Doctors and Social workers and the like. Should we make it more difficult or indeed bar trans people from being appointed into these types of professions just in case the odd predator slips through? They do play the long game Ive heard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

In the same way I can’t 100% guarantee that the person opposite me at work hasn’t got themselves a job there to perv on people that pass our office window, no I can’t.

It seems like an unlikely scenario though. And I don’t see how this ‘new law’ enhances the potential efficiency of sexual predators.

On a more general point, and not in any way aimed at you to be clear: I wasn’t very sure where I stood on the whole debate, and wasn’t aware of much of the detail. Things do become a little clearer the more the usual suspects who want to find fault in anything connected to “Sturgeon” are putting forward their obsessive, and at times bizarre, arguments with no substance.

A sterling job as always.

---

Thank you for your reply.

I am not concerned about the person opposite you at work but I am concerned you are not 100% confident no predators would try to take advantage of the changes yet you still seem to support them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenlex

In the same way you could guarantee it would?
Predators are predators and has been pointed out they don’t need the piece of paper to be just that.

---

I can guarantee it won't make it more difficult for them.

You said it won't make it easier for them but you can't guarantee that can you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

I can guarantee it won't make it more difficult for them.

You said it won't make it easier for them but you can't guarantee that can you?

---

I’ve edited my reply but in the same vein should we make it more difficult for trans people from entering professions dealing with vulnerable people just in case? Perhaps even prohibiting it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Wadhwa also told The Guilty Feminist podcast that rape survivors could “reframe” their trauma and have “a more positive relationship with it”.

She was referring to their trauma, not their negative assumptions about transgender people. You've taken her comments out of context in order to manufacture a grievance.

Which is ironic, because it very much falls into the category of negative assumptions that people make about transgender people.

---

Selective quoting. Your obviously new to the incident and don't remember it yourself. The question was should women be allowed to not have a trans councillor. Some of her colleagues defender her, some said people can hold whatever view they want on transgender people

She said therapy is political and people's prejudices will be challenged after seeking help after being raped. Just admit your wrong on this as what she says is shocking

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19509343.outcry-plan-educate-bigoted-rape-survivors-trans-rights/

Mridul Wadhwa, a transgender woman, said people would not truly recover unless they addressed their “unacceptable beliefs” because “therapy is political”.

“We will work with you... but please expect to be challenged on your prejudices."


"Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. It is not a discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you."

“But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma.
“But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenlex

I’ve edited my reply but in the same vein should we make it more difficult for trans people from entering professions dealing with vulnerable people just in case? Perhaps even prohibiting it?

---

You've again avoided saying whether or not a 100% guarantee can be given that it won't make it easier for predators. Let's cover that matter off first before moving to another aspect of the debate.

You said it won't but you're not prepared to guarantee it which means you are not 100% confident so you are accepting there is a chance (maybe just a very very small one) that it might.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

You've again avoided saying whether or not a 100% guarantee can be given that it won't make it easier for predators. Let's cover that matter off first before moving to another aspect of the debate.

You said it won't but you're not prepared to guarantee it which means you are not 100% confident so you are accepting there is a chance (maybe just a very very small one) that it might.

---

Can you 100% guarantee if the change doesn’t go ahead now, that a trans persons won’t feel aggrieved and go out and attack someone?

I know . Ridiculous, isn’t it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

In the same way I can’t 100% guarantee that the person opposite me at work hasn’t got themselves a job there to perv on people that pass our office window, no I can’t.

It seems like an unlikely scenario though. And I don’t see how this ‘new law’ enhances the potential efficiency of sexual predators.

On a more general point, and not in any way aimed at you to be clear: I wasn’t very sure where I stood on the whole debate, and wasn’t aware of much of the detail. Things do become a little clearer the more the usual suspects who want to find fault in anything connected to “Sturgeon” are putting forward their obsessive, and at times bizarre, arguments with no substance.

A sterling job as always.

---

That's pretty much the point I've found myself at. I was unsure what side of the debate I was on until I actually read the new legislation and saw that most of the concerns were theoretical, however the clincher for me was those making the arguments against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

You've again avoided saying whether or not a 100% guarantee can be given that it won't make it easier for predators. Let's cover that matter off first before moving to another aspect of the debate.

You said it won't but you're not prepared to guarantee it which means you are not 100% confident so you are accepting there is a chance (maybe just a very very small one) that it might.

---

If your basis for passing any legislation is having a 100% guarantee on its actions then I'm afraid nothing will get done as that's an impossible bar to achieve.

I've said this before on this thread and I'll say it again. There is an awful lot of posters on here who seem heavily invested in women's safety and rights judging by the frequency and type of post on this thread.

I look around the rest of the site though, and that concern doesn't seem to continue. In fact there are very few other threads around this topic. We've just had yet another case of the Met police shielding and failing to deal with a horrifically violent officer preying on women. And yet it's trans people we should be most worried about and who need post after post written about them based on stuff here.

Given the standard seems to be the legislation cannot be be 100% guaranteed to stop an abuser finding a way round it, maybe we should shut the Met police as ultimately we can't be 100% sure there are not serving officers who are a grave threat to women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

You've again avoided saying whether or not a 100% guarantee can be given that it won't make it easier for predators. Let's cover that matter off first before moving to another aspect of the debate.

You said it won't but you're not prepared to guarantee it which means you are not 100% confident so you are accepting there is a chance (maybe just a very very small one) that it might.

---

There is nothing easier than going and doing the deed. Why bother going to the bother of changing your gender to do it so therefore it by very definition isn’t easier. It’s more work if you like. As has been said numerous times they are going to do it regardless. will it facilitate an opportunity? Perhaps but no more than the other situations regarding professions. It’s not an excuse not to change the process speed wise regarding trans people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Can you 100% guarantee if the change doesn’t go ahead now, that one of these big nasty trans persons won’t feel aggrieved and go out and attack someone?

I know . Ridiculous, isn’t it.

---

Your sarcastic implication that I'm anti-trans is what's ridiculous.

You are equating what a trans person might do if the bill doesn't go through with what a predator might do if it does. That is also ridiculous.

I don't think a trans person would do that but can't guarantee it. I think it is very very low risk. You can't guarantee a predator won't try and take advantage of the changes if they do go ahead. What level of risk would you put on it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

Your sarcastic implication that I'm anti-trans is what's ridiculous.

You are equating what a trans person might do if the bill doesn't go through with what a predator might do if it does. That is also ridiculous.

I don't think a trans person would do that but can't guarantee it. I think it is very very low risk. You can't guarantee a predator won't try and take advantage of the changes if they do go ahead. What level of risk would you put on it?

---

Yes I apologise for the (since edited prior to your reply) first line as after reading it I realised how it came across.

It’s all ridiculous, which was my point. And I’m not equating anything - I was asking for a 100% guarantee of a seemingly daft and hypothetical scenario, in the same way you’ve been demanding the same of a number of people before agreeing to discuss anything else.

I don’t think the proposed changes will make any difference to the likelihood of a predator attacking. I can’t guarantee it but think it’s very very low risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

That's pretty much the point I've found myself at. I was unsure what side of the debate I was on until I actually read the new legislation and saw that most of the concerns were theoretical, however the clincher for me was those making the arguments against.

---

Who people like Joanna Cherry, Michelle Thomson or the severely disabled lady a few pages back that said this will effect her getting female only intimate care.

This isn't black and white even if the defenders pray they can frame it as that. I don't believe it will increase sexual assault at all personally. But I do believe women shouldn't have their rights diminished. The vast majority of the population back 90% of this legislation, so the transphobic shtick doesn't work.

The one 1% of nutters on each side should be ignored and shouted down. On one side idiots that think trans are weird or sexual predators and on the other side ones that think lesbians who wouldn't go with a trans are bigoted or females who want female only care/spaces are bigots.

The problem is the later group are increasing given positions of power in this debate and are even in the government decision making process

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

Your sarcastic implication that I'm anti-trans is what's ridiculous.

You are equating what a trans person might do if the bill doesn't go through with what a predator might do if it does. That is also ridiculous.

I don't think a trans person would do that but can't guarantee it. I think it is very very low risk. You can't guarantee a predator won't try and take advantage of the changes if they do go ahead. What level of risk would you put on it?

---

I think it’s a lower risk than a trans person losing the plot being aggrieved so I’m going to put it at the very very very low category.
You are arguing that a sexual predator will effectively turn trans to get access to victims that they can already access quite freely at the moment should they wish. Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neil7908

If your basis for passing any legislation is having a 100% guarantee on its actions then I'm afraid nothing will get done as that's an impossible bar to achieve.

I've said this before on this thread and I'll say it again. There is an awful lot of posters on here who seem heavily invested in women's safety and rights judging by the frequency and type of post on this thread.

I look around the rest of the site though, and that concern doesn't seem to continue. In fact there are very few other threads around this topic. We've just had yet another case of the Met police shielding and failing to deal with a horrifically violent officer preying on women. And yet it's trans people we should be most worried about and who need post after post written about them based on stuff here.

Given the standard seems to be the legislation cannot be be 100% guaranteed to stop an abuser finding a way round it, maybe we should shut the Met police as ultimately we can't be 100% sure there are not serving officers who are a grave threat to women.

---

You should see how all these magnificent defenders of women’s rights talk to and about NS online.[emoji102]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Who people like Joanna Cherry, Michelle Thomson or the severely disabled lady a few pages back that said this will effect her getting female only intimate care.

This isn't black and white even if the defenders pray they can frame it as that. I don't believe it will increase sexual assault at all personally. But I do believe women shouldn't have their rights diminished. The vast majority of the population back 90% of this legislation, so the transphobic shtick doesn't work.

The one 1% of nutters on each side should be ignored and shouted down. On one side idiots that think trans are weird or sexual predators and on the other side ones that think lesbians who wouldn't go with a trans are bigoted or females who want female only care/spaces are bigots.

The problem is the later group are increasing given positions of power in this debate and are even in the government decision making process

---

This is a pretty fair post, I agree with a lot of it. And I don’t think the names you’ve given are the sort of people who Hibrandenberg was referring to, no. Certainly wasn’t who I meant.

It’s definitely not black and white. Both H and I have said as much by conceding we weren’t entirely sure where we stood here. I would argue that there’s been more manufactured and ridiculous scenarios painted over the last few pages of this thread, then there has legitimate concerns. Which was kind of our point.

On your last line though, do you not think the theme of both sides applies here too?

I personally think that there will be far more than 1% of people ‘against the bill’ who are anti-trans, or at least don’t have the legitimate concerns they are pretending to, whether they admit that to themselves or not. But that’s another argument.

Is the vast majority/90% thing something you’ve read, or a general estimate?

Someone earlier in the thread told us (along the lines of) the majority of people don’t care about trans people’s rights because they want better education and housing, which is an example of the more silly and ignorant arguments.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/opini...re-parliament/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

This is a pretty fair post, I agree with a lot of it. And I don’t think the names you’ve given are the sort of people who Hibrandenberg was referring to, no. Certainly wasn’t who I meant.

It’s definitely not black and white. Both H and I have said as much by conceding we weren’t entirely sure where we stood here. I would argue that there’s been more manufactured and ridiculous scenarios painted over the last few pages of this thread, then there has legitimate concerns. Which was kind of our point.

On your last line though, do you not think the theme of both sides applies here too?

I personally think that there will be far more than 1% of people ‘against the bill’ who are anti-trans, or at least don’t have the legitimate concerns they are pretending to, whether they admit that to themselves or not. But that’s another argument.

---

Sorry I meant 1% of total pop that is on that extreme side. Yes perhaps a higher percentage of those against the bill have backwards views.

I genuinely believe though that the vast vast majority of the population agree with more rights and better treatment of trans, but want a few caveats. I don't think that is anti trans just perhaps weighing one groups rights without losing to much of another's groups rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Who people like Joanna Cherry, Michelle Thomson or the severely disabled lady a few pages back that said this will effect her getting female only intimate care.

This isn't black and white even if the defenders pray they can frame it as that. I don't believe it will increase sexual assault at all personally. But I do believe women shouldn't have their rights diminished. The vast majority of the population back 90% of this legislation, so the transphobic shtick doesn't work.

The one 1% of nutters on each side should be ignored and shouted down. On one side idiots that think trans are weird or sexual predators and on the other side ones that think lesbians who wouldn't go with a trans are bigoted or females who want female only care/spaces are bigots.

The problem is the later group are increasing given positions of power in this debate and are even in the government decision making process

---

No, people on here who regularly comment on women regarding their appearance rather than their character or beliefs or who previously said that men who stand in support of women are somehow creepy but are now themselves stalwarts of female equality and those who are normally so conservative that they'd like to conserve us all back to Victorian times. There's more to the polarisation behind this debate on here than trans rights or women's rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Why would a sexual deviant want to specifically target women's refuges when they have a multitude of options open to them anyway? Considering the small percentage of actual sexual abusers over society as a whole, what do you honestly think the likelihood is of a sexual abuser with no previous criminal convictions, waiting 3 months so they can pretend to be a woman, just so they can specifically target a women's refuge? I would say not very likely at all. It's not exactly a place where they'd be less likely to be caught, considering these are vulnerable women who have a close watch over them at all times to ensure their own safety.

---

So why have women's groups been raising issues? Why did a Government minister take a position that got her sacked? Why did the UN Rapporteur on violence against women raise concerns? All of these women got it wrong and just didn't understand their fears were groundless ? Is that it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neil7908

If your basis for passing any legislation is having a 100% guarantee on its actions then I'm afraid nothing will get done as that's an impossible bar to achieve.

I've said this before on this thread and I'll say it again. There is an awful lot of posters on here who seem heavily invested in women's safety and rights judging by the frequency and type of post on this thread.

I look around the rest of the site though, and that concern doesn't seem to continue. In fact there are very few other threads around this topic. We've just had yet another case of the Met police shielding and failing to deal with a horrifically violent officer preying on women. And yet it's trans people we should be most worried about and who need post after post written about them based on stuff here.

Given the standard seems to be the legislation cannot be be 100% guaranteed to stop an abuser finding a way round it, maybe we should shut the Met police as ultimately we can't be 100% sure there are not serving officers who are a grave threat to women.

---

I'm not talking about legislations needing to have a 100% guarantee on their actions. I'm talking about 1 legislation having a 100% guarantee it's intended actions won't have a side effect that's detrimental to women and girl's safety. What is wrong with being concerned about that?

It is appropriate to this thread. Are you suggesting that because it isn't elsewhere on this site then nobody is concerned about it?

You're analogy with the police doesn't work. Nobody has proposed a legislation which has a side effect of making it easier for the police to commit abuse.

Seems like you are happy to accept a potential increase in risk to women's and girl's saftey. Are you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

No, people on here who regularly comment on women regarding their appearance rather than their character or beliefs or who previously said that men who stand in support of women are somehow creepy but are now themselves stalwarts of female equality and those who are normally so conservative that they'd like to conserve us all back to Victorian times. There's more to the polarisation behind this debate on here than trans rights or women's rights.

---

Yep. I’d also add that it would be interesting to see if one or two of our posters who have put themselves at the heart of this debate, would be quite as vocal in their concerns, or even on the same side, if (for example) Nicola Sturgeon and J K Rowling were to swap stances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

So why have women's groups been raising issues? Why did a Government minister take a position that got her sacked? Why did the UN Rapporteur on violence against women raise concerns? All of these women got it wrong and just didn't understand their fears were groundless ? Is that it?

---

I think their fears are groundless. They may be real but they do appear to be groundless. I don’t see any prospect of a large rise in trans predators. It hasn’t happened in any other country that introduced self ID so I can’t see why it would happen here?
All I see are evermore obscure hypotheticals getting thrown around. I’m not surprised that some women are now afraid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

This is a pretty fair post, I agree with a lot of it. And I don’t think the names you’ve given are the sort of people who Hibrandenberg was referring to, no. Certainly wasn’t who I meant.

It’s definitely not black and white. Both H and I have said as much by conceding we weren’t entirely sure where we stood here. I would argue that there’s been more manufactured and ridiculous scenarios painted over the last few pages of this thread, then there has legitimate concerns. Which was kind of our point.

On your last line though, do you not think the theme of both sides applies here too?

I personally think that there will be far more than 1% of people ‘against the bill’ who are anti-trans, or at least don’t have the legitimate concerns they are pretending to, whether they admit that to themselves or not. But that’s another argument.

Is the vast majority/90% thing something you’ve read, or a general estimate?

Someone earlier in the thread told us (along the lines of) the majority of people don’t care about trans people’s rights because they want better education and housing, which is an example of the more silly and ignorant arguments.

---

Didn't see your edits. The 90% is an estimate from what polling there is. The vast majority agree to people changing sex. They agree to every other change bar a couple that is changing the age to 16, changing with the help of a doctor, having female only spaces/situations and sports

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Yep. I’d also add that it would be interesting to see if one or two of our posters who have put themselves at the heart of this debate, would be quite as vocal in their concerns, or even on the same side, if (for example) Nicola Sturgeon and J K Rowling were to swap stances.

---

Zero chance of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

however the clincher for me was those making the arguments against.

---

Women? Feminist groups?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Yep. I’d also add that it would be interesting to see if one or two of our posters who have put themselves at the heart of this debate, would be quite as vocal in their concerns, or even on the same side, if (for example) Nicola Sturgeon and J K Rowling were to swap stances.

---

I personally think Harry potter is pish and Nicola Sturgeon is by far the best current UK leader

There is a thread on here all about women’s safety which some of the posters on this thread who seem very worried about the threat of trans predators have barely posted on. It seems women only really need protected from trans people?
Or maybe, there is just no way to attack NS on that thread?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Yes I apologise for the (since edited prior to your reply) first line as after reading it I realised how it came across.

It’s all ridiculous, which was my point. And I’m not equating anything - I was asking for a 100% guarantee of a seemingly daft and hypothetical scenario, in the same way you’ve been demanding the same of a number of people before agreeing to discuss anything else.

I don’t think the proposed changes will make any difference to the likelihood of a predator attacking. I can’t guarantee it but think it’s very very low risk.

---

I accept your apology.

I and many others don't think it's a daft hypothetical. I think it is a very real possibility. Whilst it may be very very low risk, I think any risk is too much risk, hence my benchmark of 100%. There are plenty who think that as it currently stands, predators will think they can take advantage. I don't think their views should be dismissed as ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

There is a thread on here all about women’s safety which some of the posters on this thread who seem very worried about the threat of trans predators have barely posted on. It seems women only really need protected from trans people?
Or maybe, there is just no way to attack NS on that thread?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Trans predators? Why are you conflating trans people with predators? From what I can see most people are just concerned about predators who will abuse the new system.

This is the kind of thing Maggie Chapman would say, and she was correctly shouted down by SNP politicians when she said similar in Parliament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

There is a thread on here all about women’s safety which some of the posters on this thread who seem very worried about the threat of trans predators have barely posted on. It seems women only really need protected from trans people?
Or maybe, there is just no way to attack NS on that thread?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Is this the new tactic for moral high ground. First say its only right wingers that appose, get pointed out that left wingers appose so change tactic. Say you don't care about women's rights or its only about the snp. Pretty pathetic to be honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

I personally think Harry potter is pish and Nicola Sturgeon is by far the best current UK leader

---

😂 I didn’t mean you, but is interesting to learn you have such a damning opinion of Harry Potter 😁

I agree with your statement with the exception I don’t have any real strong feelings on HP either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

[emoji23] I didn’t mean you, but is interesting to learn you have such a damning opinion of Harry Potter [emoji16]

I agree with your statement with the exception I don’t have any real strong feelings on HP either way.

---

My youngest loved Harry Potter. I’ve contributed more than my fair share to JK Rowling vast wealth and was more than happy to do so. The books are great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

There is a thread on here all about women’s safety which some of the posters on this thread who seem very worried about the threat of trans predators have barely posted on. It seems women only really need protected from trans people?
Or maybe, there is just no way to attack NS on that thread?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I don't think women need protected from trans people. I think they shouldn't be put at increased risk from predators who wwill more easily be able to pass themselves off as trans people.

My posts are about the legislation so are applicable to this thread. For me it's not about Nicola Sturgeon though by suggesting people are using women's safety to attack her you have let slip that for you this isn't really about trans rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Sorry I meant 1% of total pop that is on that extreme side. Yes perhaps a higher percentage of those against the bill have backwards views.

I genuinely believe though that the vast vast majority of the population agree with more rights and better treatment of trans, but want a few caveats. I don't think that is anti trans just perhaps weighing one groups rights without losing to much of another's groups rights.

---

I can agree with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

I don't think women need protected from trans people. I think they shouldn't be put at increased risk from predators who wwill more easily be able to pass themselves off as trans people.

My posts are about the legislation so are applicable to this thread. For me it's not about Nicola Sturgeon though by suggesting people are using women's safety to attack her you have let slip that for you this isn't really about trans rights.

---

I’ve made clear from the off that it’s not an issue I care much about at all. I’m socially liberal so fall on the side I do but had I been an advisor to the SG I would have said don’t waste any political capital at all on it because it affects such a tiny amount of people and moves even less votes. I’m sure NS had advisors telling her just that. That’s why she is a leader and they are not though. She does what she thinks is right no matter what.
Starmer and Sarwar must be listening to their advisors which is why they are in hiding. A real lack of leadership credentials on show from them. I doubt Tony Blair would have hidden the way Starmer is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I’ve made clear from the off that it’s not an issue I care much about at all. I’m socially liberal so fall on the side I do but had I been an advisor to the SG I would have said don’t waste any political capital at all on it because it affects such a tiny amount of people and moves even less votes. I’m sure NS had advisors telling her just that. That’s why she is a leader and they are not though. She does what she thinks is right no matter what.
Starmer and Sarwar must be listening to their advisors which is why they are in hiding. A real lack of leadership credentials on show from them. I doubt Tony Blair would have hidden the way Starmer is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

👍

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

I can agree with that.

---

Care to elaborate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I’ve made clear from the off that it’s not an issue I care much about at all. I’m socially liberal so fall on the side I do but had I been an advisor to the SG I would have said don’t waste any political capital at all on it because it affects such a tiny amount of people and moves even less votes. I’m sure NS had advisors telling her just that. That’s why she is a leader and they are not though. She does what she thinks is right no matter what.
Starmer and Sarwar must be listening to their advisors which is why they are in hiding. A real lack of leadership credentials on show from them. I doubt Tony Blair would have hidden the way Starmer is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

There people more Liberal and left than you that appose gra, it doesn't go on political lines

Starmer is probably just waiting until the court case is over.if it isn't legal then there is no discussion to be had. If it is then it passes

Ian Murray on BBC Scotland just now, saying Labour got the amendment added to the Scottish Bill that ensured the primacy of the UK equality act.

I thought the lack of something like that is why the Tories are triggering a Section 35?

Maybe they just don't like the legislation after all and a 35 is a handy way to block it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Would it be pedantic to suggest that someone could grab a victim by the face and force them into a cubicle without being a fully recognised trans person?

---

I don't really think what your saying is pedantic because it has more than a grain of truth to it, my guess is that the predator at the Fife supermarkets didn't attack the girls out of being trans, my guess is that identifying as a woman was used by by this individual as a cover to gain access to a woman only space.

My personal opinion on the GRB is that is bad legislation because it could also be used by predators to gain access to woman only spaces, this most likely comes from having a wife and daughters but what really irks me is that I would much rather have Nicola Sturgeon in charge than Sunak or Starmer who I see as two cheeks of the same arse, but I think that Nicola has lost her way on this issue out of trying to appease the Greens, Maggie Chapmen's comments about it being ok to give beta blockers to 8 year old's fills me with dread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Care to elaborate

---

It sounds plausible to me. I don't have anything else to add.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

Ian Murray on BBC Scotland just now, saying Labour got the amendment added to the Scottish Bill that ensured the primacy of the UK equality act.

I thought the lack of something like that is why the Tories are triggering a Section 35?

Maybe they just don't like the legislation after all and a 35 is a handy way to block it.

---

Just because it's stated in the legislation doesn’t mean it will have that effect. The courts will sort that one way or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I think their fears are groundless. They may be real but they do appear to be groundless. I don’t see any prospect of a large rise in trans predators. It hasn’t happened in any other country that introduced self ID so I can’t see why it would happen here?
All I see are evermore obscure hypotheticals getting thrown around. I’m not surprised that some women are now afraid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

You are missing the point. It's not a concern about 'trans predators' but predators using the legislation. But why does it have to be predators. Why can’t people have single sex care if they want it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

There people more Liberal and left than you that appose gra, it doesn't go on political lines

Starmer is probably just waiting until the court case is over.if it isn't legal then there is no discussion to be had. If it is then it passes

---

Is it normal for him, or other party leaders, to wait for court cases before making comment on such a highly politicised subject, which is very prevalent in the media right now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

You are missing the point. It's not a concern about 'trans predators' but predators using the legislation. But why does it have to be predators. Why can’t people have single sex care if they want it?

---

Does the act change people right to single sex care?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Is this the new tactic for moral high ground. First say its only right wingers that appose, get pointed out that left wingers appose so change tactic. Say you don't care about women's rights or its only about the snp. Pretty pathetic to be honest.

---

It's what the left have been doing for years now, and pretty successfully too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Does the act change people right to single sex care?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

If someone self declares as a sex then what basis in law is there to object to them providing care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

It sounds plausible to me. I don't have anything else to add.

---

Haha I'm so sorry it was early and I thought you said I can't agree. Thought you were just basically saying nah and that's it. If your agree then nowt to add really ha. Sorry I'm a tit or need glasses or both

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Is it normal for him, or other party leaders, to wait for court cases before making comment on such a highly politicised subject, which is very prevalent in the media right now?

---

Yes if he feels it doesn't involve in. In as much if the court rules it isn't legal then it shouldn't stand, if they rule it is then its Scottish Parliaments choice.

Although I don't agree with it. If it's legal then it must stand

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Is it normal for him, or other party leaders, to wait for court cases before making comment on such a highly politicised subject, which is very prevalent in the media right now?

---

If I was Starmer I'd say nothing. Let the Tories and the SNP/Greens slug it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

If I was Starmer I'd say nothing. Let the Tories and the SNP/Greens slug it out.

---

You don’t think there is a political cost to hiding from issues?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickhibby

I know I am a bit pissed, but you know nothing!!! the majority of the Met are hard working decent people, you know nothing about rape victims and the trauma suffered by them both male and female. I have dealt with the cruelty committed to others that you could not imagine. I was SOIT trained so do me a favour STFU or piss off

---

Charming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

If I was Starmer I'd say nothing. Let the Tories and the SNP/Greens slug it out.

---

And that is his strategy so far, just be like the Tories and hope no one notices. He won't win the next election by hiding. I actually don't think he will win it anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

You don’t think there is a political cost to hiding from issues?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

He will make that calculation. As it's such a contentious issue I can see a logic to keeping out of it. In some respects I think it's easier just now as the 'issue' has moved on to whether the Scottish Parliament has exceeded it's powers. The Tories and the SNP/Greens will slug that out, but ultimately it will be a legal interpretation that determines it. There is a lot in it for the Tories and the SNP/Greens that goes far beyond the actual issue, which is why you are getting the megaphone rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weecounty hibby

And that is his strategy so far, just be like the Tories and hope no one notices. He won't win the next election by hiding. I actually don't think he will win it anyway

---

I'd put your money up at the bookies then. 1/3 labour win 9/4 the tories, punt on