The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

There are checks.

---

There's a risk assessment. What other 'checks'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Well if they're not going to go to the trouble of sticking on a dress, then why would they go to the trouble of waiting 2 months to get a certificate, that nobody is going to ask them for anyway, when approaching the female space?

I'm sorry, but these "concerns" are completely irrational and ignore how things really work in practice. The right wing hyperbole in the media has a lot to answer for. But then again, they've been getting away with it throughout history whenever it's came to beating down on minority groups.

---

Because the certificate would entitle them to be there if challenged. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Rapist guilty of attacking women before gender change - BBC News

Will this transgender rapist go to a women's prison? And, reading between the lines, was the decision to start the process of gender re-assignment made with a view to avoiding a men's prison?

---

Women's prison and isolated in solitary apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Not quite. If I walk into a women's changing room and get my kit off I could well be done for breach or indecent exposure. If I have certificate and do exactly the same would there be any law broken?

---

If someone complains , and it meets the criteria for those offences, then yes.

If a woman undresses in a female changing room, and exposes herself "indecently" (subjective term, of course), the same would apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

There are checks.

---

If the convicted sex offender who has very likely been convicted of an offence involving lying and manipulation volunteers they are applying for a GRC, which I am sure they all would do.......

But how does this advance Trans Rights which is what the aim of the Bill is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

There's a risk assessment. What other 'checks'.

---

I was pulling the poster up for saying "there are no checks". Which is incorrect.

Whether these checks are appropriate and sufficient..... that was last week's discussion :greengrin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Because the certificate would entitle them to be there if challenged. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

---

I have no doubt there are sex offenders out there who maybe have in the past thought about a crime but have been put off as they would as a very visible man be in a woman's space. They get a GRC now so much easier than before and it happens to give them that little bit of confidence they never had in the past to go on and commit that offence as if challenged they are now legally a woman and have the paperwork to prove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I was pulling the poster up for saying "there are no checks". Which is incorrect.

Whether these checks are appropriate and sufficient..... that was last week's discussion :greengrin.

---

What are the checks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Because the certificate would entitle them to be there if challenged. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

---

Who is going to walk up to them and challenge them for a certificate? That's never happened before and there's no reason to assume it would happen now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Who is going to walk up to them and challenge them for a certificate? That's never happened before and there's no reason to assume it would happen now.

---

I'm not talking about somebody challenging them for a certificate (will it be a requirement to carry one? I don't know) but should a bloke who has been granted one decide to loiter around a women-only space and gets told that he's in, say, the women's changing room, he'll be able to reply 'I am a woman'. Yes, that could apply to someone who has been granted one under the current legislation but there's no question there are a lot less hoops to jump through (ie virtually none) to gain that kind of legal access under the SG bill. It seems entirely understandable that women would feel deeply uncomfortable about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Women's prison and isolated in solitary apparently.

---

The analysis by David Cowan which has now been added to the story underlines what a messy business this is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64388669

That bloke surely cannot be allowed to serve his sentence among women prisoners if holding him in solitary will ultimately breach his human rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

The analysis by David Cowan which has now been added to the story underlines what a messy business this is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64388669

That bloke surely cannot be allowed to serve his sentence among women prisoners if holding him in solitary will ultimately breach his human rights.

---

I genuinely think the only solution is male, female and trans facilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I genuinely think the only solution is male, female and trans facilities.

---

But there are trans men and trans women, there isn't just trans?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Second former Supreme Court judge explains why the veto is correct (from the Sunday Times):

This is a fight with Westminster that Sturgeon won't win
by Jonathan Sumption

THE UK government’s veto of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill has provoked predictable outrage from Bute House. The first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has called it a “full frontal attack” on Scottish democracy. She threatens a challenge in the courts.
Three streets away in Edinburgh’s New Town, Lord Hope of Craighead, a distinguished Scottish lawyer and former deputy president of the UK Supreme Court, is scathing. Her litigation, he says, will be a hopeless waste of public money. What is going on?
The Edinburgh parliament is a subordinate legislature. It owes its existence and powers entirely to the Scotland Act 1998, an act of the UK parliament. The scheme of the Scotland Act is perfectly rational. It devolves to Scotland everything of exclusive concern to Scotland, while reserving to Westminster a long list of “reserved matters” that concern the whole of the United Kingdom.
Section 35 of the act is part of this scheme. It empowers the UK government to stop a Scottish bill from becoming law, but only if the bill deals with matters reserved to Westminster in a way that adversely affects how the law works.One of these reserved matters is equal opportunities.
What mainly concerns the UK government is that the new bill will create a special regime for recognising gender reassignment in Scotland. Trans people will be able to self-identify without satisfying the clinical tests that apply in the rest of the UK and the minimum age will be reduced from 18 to 16. This is achieved by modifying the operation in Scotland of two Westminster statutes, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, both of which apply throughout the UK.
The changes will not apply in the rest of the UK, but that is heart of the problem. If the bill becomes law, some UK citizens will have a different legal gender in different parts of the UK, depending on where they happen to be.
This poses serious legal and practical problems for employers and public authorities operating on a UK-wide basis. They will have to discriminate between trans people in Scotland and the rest of the UK on such matters as equal pay, gender discrimination, tax, benefits and pensions, all of which are subject to UK-wide statutory regimes.
These are powerful points. It is not clear what the Scottish ministers’ answer is. Unless they can think of one, their judicial review will fail. But all that we have heard from them so far is froth and rage.
The suggestion that the UK government’s veto is an attack on Scottish democracy is absurd. The matters reserved to Westminster by the Scotland Act concern the whole of the UK. Only Westminster can legitimately speak for the whole of the UK, and Scotland is fully represented there by 59 MPs. They don’t always get their way, but that is democracy for you.
The Scottish parliament represents less than a tenth of the people of the UK. It would be wholly undemocratic for the Scottish tail to be allowed to wag the UK dog on issues such as these.
Scotland has a remarkably generous devolution settlement. Almost everything which really matters to Scots is devolved. This ought to mean that there are few occasions for conflict with Westminster.
But for some years Scottish ministers have been promoting bills in Edinburgh designed to throw grit into the working of the Union in the few areas where there is scope for disagreement. The strategy is to nibble away at the matters reserved to Westminster in order to provoke constitutional rows, which they hope will boost support for independence.
Hence the constant yelling about assaults on Scottish democracy whenever the Scottish parliament comes up against the limits of its powers and the legitimate interests of the UK as a whole.
On this occasion, however, Sturgeon’s famous political skills may have deserted her. The signs are that her Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is alienating some of her natural supporters north of the border. When opportunities to pick a quarrel with Westminster are so few, it is more important than ever to choose the right ones.

Lord Sumption is a former Justice of the Supreme Court

---

An interesting read, that shows why Westminster had no other option, it had to use section 35 to block the Alice in Wonderland GRRB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I genuinely think the only solution is male, female and trans facilities.

---

Fair point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

But there are trans men and trans women, there isn't just trans?!

---

Fair point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

But there are trans men and trans women, there isn't just trans?!

---

Fair point.

Apologies for the multi posts. Dunno what happened there!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Apologies for the multi posts. Dunno what happened there!

---

Fair point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I genuinely think the only solution is male, female and trans facilities.

---

This case is just insane. A transwoman found guilty of raping two women is sent to a women's prison because he started transitioning AFTER being charged with the offences. Why wasn't he charged with contempt of court??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

An interesting read, that shows why Westminster had no other option, it had to use section 35 to block the Alice in Wonderland GRRB.

---

It provided a good explanation for the likes of me that hadn't heard clear examples of how the GRR impacts the Equality Act. Imo the last 3 para's come across as a dislike for the SG which then makes me question how objective the former Judge's view on the Bill is. There was no need to specifically mention the SG/FM, it comes across as being overtly politically biased which has no real basis given the legislation has cross party support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Will it be a requirement to carry one? I don't know.

---

No. It wasn't the case before, so it wouldn't be the case now either. There are no checks on people for GRCs when entering gender specific spaces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

but should a bloke who has been granted one decide to loiter around a women-only space and gets told that he's in, say, the women's changing room, he'll be able to reply 'I am a woman'.

---

Any man could have walked into a women's changing room already and simply claimed that. Why anybody would go to the hassle of getting a GRC in order to gain access to a female changing room in order to say something that they could just say anyway without a GRC is beyond ludicrous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

This case is just insane. A transwoman found guilty of raping two women is sent to a women's prison because he started transitioning AFTER being charged with the offences. Why wasn't he charged with contempt of court??

---

Still has nothing to do with the legislation being blocked by Westminster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

But there are trans men and trans women, there isn't just trans?!

---

Most new build council government and university buildings are making gender neutral toilets and changing areas a standard. Each toilet cubicle has toilet sink hand dryer, so no mixing.

I think their should be some as standard in all new build public buildings just like disabled facilities are. Would solve one issue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

No. It wasn't the case before, so it wouldn't be the case now either. There are no checks on people for GRCs when entering gender specific spaces.



Any man could have walked into a women's changing room already and simply claimed that. Why anybody would go to the hassle of getting a GRC in order to gain access to a female changing room in order to say something that they could just say anyway without a GRC is beyond ludicrous.

---

How does allowing a convicted sex offender get a GRC so much easier than the process today advance Trans Rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Most new build council government and university buildings are making gender neutral toilets and changing areas a standard. Each toilet cubicle has toilet sink hand dryer, so no mixing.

I think their should be some as standard in all new build public buildings just like disabled facilities are. Would solve one issue

---

That's one of the most sensible posts with an actual solution.

Gender neutral toilets in the Queen's Hall since it was renovated and there is no problem.

As for the women only space such as refuges, they can refuse entry to anyone now and that doesn't change.

Dramatic increase of hate crime against trans people in yesterday's figures produced by the SG. This despite an overall decrease in hate crimes during the same period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Still has nothing to do with the legislation being blocked by Westminster.

---

Not saying it does. This thread goes wider than that though and it's a concerning new development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa Cruz

It provided a good explanation for the likes of me that hadn't heard clear examples of how the GRR impacts the Equality Act. Imo the last 3 para's come across as a dislike for the SG which then makes me question how objective the former Judge's view on the Bill is. There was no need to specifically mention the SG/FM, it comes across as being overtly politically biased which has no real basis given the legislation has cross party support.

---

I thought it wouldn't be long before a supporter of the Scottish government came along with SG good UK gov bad line. However one thing to bare in mind is that if Starmer was in power he would have blocked it too, he would have had no other option because it impacts on the Equality Act.

Also if Nicola Sturgeon wants to waste tax payers money by taking it to court, the judges will also block it, not because they are anti Scottish but because blocking bad legislation that impacts on the Equality Act is the grown up thing to do.

https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/statu...TX48CyjMQ&s=19

A member of the SNP threatened to rape and kill Joanna Cherry because of her views.

"A member of my own party was convicted of threatening to rape me because of my views... trans rights activists threatened to murder me."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

I thought it wouldn't be long before a supporter of the Scottish government came along with SG good UK gov bad line. However one thing to bare in mind is that if Starmer was in power he would have blocked it too, he would have had no other option because it impacts on the Equality Act.

Also if Nicola Sturgeon wants to waste tax payers money by taking it to court, the judges will also block it, not because they are anti Scottish but because blocking bad legislation that impacts on the Equality Act is the grown up thing to do.

---

I'm not an SNP or Tory voter. I was pointing out the former judge did not sound impartial to me as there really was no need for him to mention his views on the SG/FM, he should have just stuck to the subject issue. I was also pointing out the Bill has cross party support, maybe he should have aimed his critisism at the Scottish Parliament and not singled out the SG. I don't hold extreme views on anything. I like to look at both sides of any issue, then I make up my mind where I stand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibby70

Fair point

---

I agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Dramatic increase of hate crime against trans people in yesterday's figures produced by the SG. This despite an overall decrease in hate crimes during the same period.

---

And the definition of hate crimes is?

This thread is just rehashing the old arguments about sexual predators and changing rooms. Those arguments have been had and it’s been voted on in the Scottish Parliament. None of that really matters now to what happens next. All that matters now, is if the law affects England to the extant that justifies a s35 order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Any man could have walked into a women's changing room already and simply claimed that. Why anybody would go to the hassle of getting a GRC in order to gain access to a female changing room in order to say something that they could just say anyway without a GRC is beyond ludicrous.

---

Again, 'any man' who did that without a GRC would not have the law on his side should he be challenged over his presence there. You seem to be choosing to ignore the very clear reasons why women are entitled to feel uneasy about this aspect of the bill.

The 'Isla Bryson' case, while not relating directly to the bill, does indicate the lengths sexual predators will go to turn a situation to their advantage.

Incidentally IIRC there was an amendment proposed to the bill which would in future have prevented sex offenders doing just what 'Isla' has done but it was voted down by the SNP/Greens and (I think) Lib Dems. Unfathomable really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

This thread is just rehashing the old arguments about sexual predators and changing rooms. Those arguments have been had and it’s been voted on in the Scottish Parliament. None of that really matters now to what happens next. All that matters now, is if the law affects England to the extant that justifies a s35 order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I pretty much agree with this. I think the ramifications of the whole process will resonate for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I pretty much agree with this. I think the ramifications of the whole process will resonate for a long time.

---

Yet some say it's a niche matter, the general public don't care and it will soon be forgotten about. Maybe wishful thinking I suspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

And the definition of hate crimes is?

---

It's on the SG website mate. I'm on my phone so can't link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

It's on the SG website mate. I'm on my phone so can't link.

---

OK I'll have a look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Dramatic increase of hate crime against trans people in yesterday's figures produced by the SG. This despite an overall decrease in hate crimes during the same period.

---

I suppose if you pick out a group of people and equate them with sex-offenders day after day haters will end up hating.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

OK I'll have a look.

---

Back home. Here you go.

Recording of hate crime by police
What is the definition of a police recorded hate crime?
This report draws on information recorded by Police Scotland and adopts the categorisations and definitions used by them when they do this. Further information on how Police Scotland record hate crimes is provided below.

For the purposes of this report, a hate crime is any crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards a social group.

In Scotland, the law recognises hate crimes as crimes motivated by prejudice based on the characteristics listed below. Further information on the legislation used by the police to record hate crime is also available within Section One of the earlier 'Developing Information on Hate Crime Recorded by the Police in Scotland' report.

Disability,
Race,
Religion,
Sexual orientation,
Transgender identity.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/st...rime-scotland/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

I suppose if you pick out a group of people and equate them with sex-offenders day after day haters will end up hating.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

Literally nobody is doing that. It seems you want that to be true but it's not. You are copying Maggie Chapman, I will let you decide if that's someone you think you should be copying. Even the SNP members shouted her down when she did this.

How does allowing a convicted sex offender getting a GRC so easily with this change advance Trans Rights, which you are so obviously concerned about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Literally nobody is doing that. It seems you want that to be true but it's not.

---

Nobody is doing that? Do you monitor every social platform in existence?

If you mention fruit in your answer don't expect a reply.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Nobody is doing that? Do you monitor every social platform in existence?

If you mention fruit in your answer don't expect a reply.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

I see people concerned about sex offenders, I see very few people saying Trans people are all sex offenders which is what you were implying.

I can ask again, how does allowing a convicted sex offender get a GRC so much easier than before advance Trans Rights? How?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Nobody is doing that? Do you monitor every social platform in existence?

If you mention fruit in your answer don't expect a reply.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

:tee hee:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

I see people concerned about sex offenders, I see very few people saying Trans people are all sex offenders which is what you were implying.

---

The rhetorical habit of mentioning both groups in the same sentence every day, day after day leads to a conflation. There doesn't have to be intent from the writer, the repeated juxtaposition is enough to trigger some folk toward hatred.

Do you monitor every social platform?

What reason would you say there is to explain the increase in hate crimes?


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

The rhetorical habit of mentioning both groups in the same sentence every day, day after day leads to a conflation. There doesn't have to be intent from the writer, the repeated juxtaposition is enough to trigger some folk toward hatred.

Do you monitor every social platform?

What reason would you say there is to explain the increase in hate crimes?


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

I'd like to think that more of these crimes are being reported, which would increase the numbers in those stats.

However, part of me worries that the number of actual attacks is increasing. Just like post 9-11 with Muslims and in the 80's against gay men after decriminalisation, there could be a similar pattern; shine a light on a minority, highlight something "bad" about them and there's your excuse for violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

The rhetorical habit of mentioning both groups in the same sentence every day, day after day leads to a conflation. There doesn't have to be intent from the writer, the repeated juxtaposition is enough to trigger some folk toward hatred.

Do you monitor every social platform?

What reason would you say there is to explain the increase in hate crimes?


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

But why does changing the process to now allow a convicted sex offender get a GRC much easier than before advance Trans Rights? How does this change help trans people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

But why does changing the process to now allow a convicted sex offender get a GRC much easier than before advance Trans Rights? How does this change help trans people?

---

Your doing the thing that I am highlighting again and again without addressing a possible outcome of what you are doing.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'd like to think that more of these crimes are being reported, which would increase the numbers in those stats.

However, part of me worries that the number of actual attacks is increasing. Just like post 9-11 with Muslims and in the 80's against gay men after decriminalisation, there could be a similar pattern; shine a light on a minority, highlight something "bad" about them and there's your excuse for violence.

---

Of course it's going to happen. Not everyone understands nuance. If a narrative is constructed whereby trans people are persistently juxtaposed to sex offenders, as happened with gay rights legislation, thickos will act as they see fit and lash out.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

The rhetorical habit of mentioning both groups in the same sentence every day, day after day leads to a conflation. There doesn't have to be intent from the writer, the repeated juxtaposition is enough to trigger some folk toward hatred.

Do you monitor every social platform?

What reason would you say there is to explain the increase in hate crimes?


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

Exactly. We saw the same thing with the shameful and largely underreported rise in hate crime against the Asian predominantly Chinese ethnic population across the west during Covid. Make repeated connections between an ethnic group and any threatening phenomena, (death dealing pandemic and sexual violence playing the same role) connecting with ‘The Chinese’ and ‘blokes wearing a dress’ respectively, and you have a potent toxic brew where you are creating a target for othering and worse.

Sigh, why can’t we just get along with each other. John Lennon required here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Your doing the thing that I am highlighting again and again without addressing a possible outcome of what you are doing.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

Fair enough, don't answer the question then, I only asked it about 3 times.

A consequence of the change in law makes it easier for everyone to apply for a GRC, lots of people have valid concerns due to this change but rather than address those concerns it's much easier to just shout them down like Maggie Chapman and say people are saying Trans people are sex offenders when nobody is doing that.

Are Joanna Cherry and JK Rowling and lots of other feminists all wrong? Are they saying Trans people are sex offenders or do they as woman have valid concerns that should be addressed?

We are going round in circles though so I am off for an apple, or maybe a pear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/statu...TX48CyjMQ&s=19

A member of the SNP threatened to rape and kill Joanna Cherry because of her views.

"A member of my own party was convicted of threatening to rape me because of my views... trans rights activists threatened to murder me."

---

She's spot on about 'Isla' gaming the system to get a placed in a women's prison. I do wonder how long Cherry will feel she can in good conscience remain an SNP member.

Seems an appropriate day to turn to the words of Burns:

'Amid this mighty fuss just let me mention,
The Rights of Woman merit some attention'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

And the definition of hate crimes is?

---

The Scottish Government defines Hate Crime as crime committed against a person or property that is motivated by ‘malice or ill-will towards an identifiable social group’.

You can be a victim of a hate crime if you believe that someone has targeted you because of their prejudice against certain characteristics.

In Scotland, the law currently recognises hate crimes as crimes motivated by prejudice based on:

race
religion
sexual orientation
transgender identity
disability
You do not need to be a member of a minority community to be a victim of hate crime. The law is quite clear that the identity of the victim is irrelevant as to whether something is a hate crime or not. The motivation of the perpetrator is the key factor in defining a hate crime.

Hate Crimes can take a number of forms, including, but not limited to:

Threatening behaviour
Verbal abuse or insults including name-calling
Assault
Damage to property
Encouraging others to commit hate crimes
Harassment
Online abuse on sites like Facebook or Twitter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Fair enough, don't answer the question then, I only asked it about 3 times.

A consequence of the change in law makes it easier for everyone to apply for a GRC, lots of people have valid concerns due to this change but rather than address those concerns it's much easier to just shout them down like Maggie Chapman and say people are saying Trans people are sex offenders when nobody is doing that.

Are Joanna Cherry and JK Rowling and lots of other feminists all wrong? Are they saying Trans people are sex offenders or do they as woman have valid concerns that should be addressed?

We are going round in circles though so I am off for an apple, or maybe a pear.

---

You of course are repeatedly refusing to answer questions too. Enjoy your pair of apples.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

You of course are repeatedly refusing to answer questions too. Enjoy your pair of apples.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

What question did I refuse to answer? Fire away.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...c1bUB8Khw&s=19

"Men defining what a woman is, what women should and shouldn’t fear, what women should and shouldn’t say, what rights women should be fine with giving up and, of course, what constitutes ‘real’ misogyny: get a bloody mirror. That’s real misogyny, looking right back at you."

Some of the men on here should pay attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...c1bUB8Khw&s=19

"Men defining what a woman is, what women should and shouldn’t fear, what women should and shouldn’t say, what rights women should be fine with giving up and, of course, what constitutes ‘real’ misogyny: get a bloody mirror. That’s real misogyny, looking right back at you."

Some of the men on here should pay attention.

---

She's always spot on about this issue. As she is further down the page re Rosie Duffield's breezily mysogynistic treatment by her own party:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...6KKYbID8AZ5Hxg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Fair enough, don't answer the question then, I only asked it about 3 times.

A consequence of the change in law makes it easier for everyone to apply for a GRC, lots of people have valid concerns due to this change but rather than address those concerns it's much easier to just shout them down like Maggie Chapman and say people are saying Trans people are sex offenders when nobody is doing that.

Are Joanna Cherry and JK Rowling and lots of other feminists all wrong? Are they saying Trans people are sex offenders or do they as woman have valid concerns that should be addressed?

We are going round in circles though so I am off for an apple, or maybe a pear.

---

The difficulty certain posters have with answering that question is that either a) they refuse to concede that any SG bill can be open to criticism and therefore won't engage in debate about its contents (the move on, nothing to see here approach) or b) the fact that Westminster has taken a stance on the matter is deemed beyond the pale and the bill must therefore be backed unconditionally. In some cases it's both.

I think the bill is a mess and would think so no matter which political party was behind it. The supposed cross-party backing is something of a smokescreen for its defenders when the majority of MSPs were whipped to support it. I know that a number of Labour MSPs were privately conflicted, though unfortunately didn't have the courage of conviction shown by a number of SNP MSPs to simply vote with their conscience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...c1bUB8Khw&s=19

"Men defining what a woman is, what women should and shouldn’t fear, what women should and shouldn’t say, what rights women should be fine with giving up and, of course, what constitutes ‘real’ misogyny: get a bloody mirror. That’s real misogyny, looking right back at you."

Some of the men on here should pay attention.

---

Spot on, I would like to here anyone try to defend this a man who rapes to woman as a man, declaring he is now a woman after being charged and being transferred to a woman only prison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gylb2ABWhuA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

The difficulty certain posters have with answering that question is that either a) they refuse to concede that any SG bill can be open to criticism and therefore won't engage in debate about its contents (the move on, nothing to see here approach) or b) the fact that Westminster has taken a stance on the matter is deemed beyond the pale and the bill must therefore be backed unconditionally. In some cases it's both.

I think the bill is a mess and would think so no matter which political party was behind it. The supposed cross-party backing is something of a smokescreen for its defenders when the majority of MSPs were whipped to support it. I know that a number of Labour MSPs were privately conflicted, though unfortunately didn't have the courage of conviction shown by a number of SNP MSPs to simply vote with their conscience.

---

I've not posted in support of the Bill or in support of the Scottish govt on the matter because the idea of rights based legislation sometimes doesn't sit right with me, whether it's the Scottish govt or not. It codifys people's identities along lines which future, more authoritarian Govt might exploit to those groups' disadvantage. There was a lobbying group of people in Brazil when race based rights legislation was in process there, arguing that the debunked 19thC idea of racial difference shouldn't be expressed in any legislation. Sometimes all that legislation does is amplify ire towards the group in question.

Which is why I brought up the rhetoric surrounding this particular discussion and its conflating the trans group with sex offenders - in almost every post, yesterday and today with some posters. My questions were met with total denial but, gratefully, without having to choose a fruit.

Who is more likely to attack a woman....

...another woman?
...a man?
...a met police officer?
...a trans-person?

If the last mentioned is last on the list you have to wonder why the ear peircing, screeching discussions about the possibility of a trans person attacking women is so imbalanced when other more pressing concerns are way more palpable.

My is guess its a chance to have a go at wee nicky, hence the pile-on.

You're perfectly entitled to do so but the attempts at appearing "concerned" about women isn't really washing with me personally.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

I've not posted in support of the Bill or in support of the Scottish govt on the matter because the idea of rights based legislation sometimes doesn't sit right with me, whether it's the Scottish govt or not. It codifys people's identities along lines which future, more authoritarian Govt might exploit to those groups' disadvantage. There was a lobbying group of people in Brazil when race based rights legislation was in process there, arguing that the debunked 19thC idea of racial difference shouldn't be expressed in any legislation. Sometimes all that legislation does is amplify ire towards the group in question.

Which is why I brought up the rhetoric surrounding this particular discussion and its conflating the trans group with sex offenders - in almost every post, yesterday and today with some posters. My questions were met with total denial but, gratefully, without having to choose a fruit.

Who is more likely to attack a woman....

...another woman?
...a man?
...a met police officer?
...a trans-person?

If the last mentioned is last on the list you have to wonder why the ear peircing, screeching discussions about the possibility of a trans person attacking women is so imbalanced when other more pressing concerns are way more palpable.

My is guess its a chance to have a go at wee nicky, hence the pile-on.

You're perfectly entitled to do so but the attempts at appearing "concerned" about women isn't really washing with me personally.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

Especially when they don’t go near the other thread about women’s safety.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

Spot on, I would like to here anyone try to defend this a man who rapes to woman as a man, declaring he is now a woman after being charged and being transferred to a woman only prison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch/v=gyl62ABWhuA

---

Has anyone defended it yet?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Has anyone defended it yet?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

Some people defend the Gender Recognition Bill which allows anyone to declare they are a different sex without the need for a medical certificate of gender dysphoria

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gylb2ABWhuA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

Some people defend the Gender Recognition Bill which allows anyone to declare they are a different sex without the need for a medical certificate of gender dysphoria

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gylb2ABWhuA

---

Kelvin Mackenzie. [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Kelvin Mackenzie. [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

He's got species dysphoria, a homo sapien transitioning into a reptile.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

He's got species dysphoria, a homo sapien transitioning into a reptile.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

Since sapiens means "wise", he left that particular species a while ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

Some people defend the Gender Recognition Bill which allows anyone to declare they are a different sex without the need for a medical certificate of gender dysphoria

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gylb2ABWhuA

---

Do you watch GB News with your critical faculties switched or as a source of actual news?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

I've not posted in support of the Bill or in support of the Scottish govt on the matter because the idea of rights based legislation sometimes doesn't sit right with me, whether it's the Scottish govt or not. It codifys people's identities along lines which future, more authoritarian Govt might exploit to those groups' disadvantage. There was a lobbying group of people in Brazil when race based rights legislation was in process there, arguing that the debunked 19thC idea of racial difference shouldn't be expressed in any legislation. Sometimes all that legislation does is amplify ire towards the group in question.

Which is why I brought up the rhetoric surrounding this particular discussion and its conflating the trans group with sex offenders - in almost every post, yesterday and today with some posters. My questions were met with total denial but, gratefully, without having to choose a fruit.

Who is more likely to attack a woman....

...another woman?
...a man?
...a met police officer?
...a trans-person?

If the last mentioned is last on the list you have to wonder why the ear peircing, screeching discussions about the possibility of a trans person attacking women is so imbalanced when other more pressing concerns are way more palpable.

My is guess its a chance to have a go at wee nicky, hence the pile-on.

You're perfectly entitled to do so but the attempts at appearing "concerned" about women isn't really washing with me personally.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

I doubt anyone would deny the likelihood of attacks on women by trans-people lies further down your list, but when women have long been under threat by more 'palpable' concerns why make another potential route to diminishing their protections easier to access? That's what women are rightly concerned about with this bill. Sturgeon is in the firing line for sure, but only because it was her government which brought the bill to life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

I doubt anyone would deny the likelihood of attacks on women by trans-people lies further down your list, but when women have long been under threat by more 'palpable' concerns why make another potential route to diminishing their protections easier to access? That's what women are rightly concerned about with this bill. Sturgeon is in the firing line for sure, but only because it was her government which brought the bill to life.

---

You're not persuading me on your level of concern re- women's safety by doubling down on the, mainly hypothetical, threat to women from trans people when a woman or three have probably been harrased or assaulted by men in the time it has taken me to write this post.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Has anyone defended it yet?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

No rational person could defend him IMHO but as already mentioned an amendment to the SG bill which would in future have explicitly forbidden men like 'Isla' from applying to change their sex while on or awaiting trial for rape (or other sexual offences) was inexplicably voted down.

MSPs scoffing at the idea of sex offenders trying to get GRCs in bad faith seems baffling when they then go on to object to an amendment which would prevent sex offenders getting a GRC in bad faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

No rational person could defend him IMHO but as already mentioned an amendment to the SG bill which would in future have explicitly forbidden men like 'Isla' from applying to change their sex while on or awaiting trial for rape (or other sexual offences) was inexplicably voted down.

MSPs scoffing at the idea of sex offenders trying to get GRCs in bad faith seems baffling when they then go on to object to an amendment which would prevent sex offenders getting a GRC in bad faith.

---

The justification for that being voted down was that, until found guilty, they're not sex offenders in the eyes of the law at that point. That is why that amendment was replaced by the later one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The justification for that being voted down was that, until found guilty, they're not sex offenders in the eyes of the law at that point. That is why that amendment was replaced by the later one.

---

Might be wrong, but I thought the amendment stipulated that the accused would be prevented from seeking to change gender until their case was concluded?

Interesting article (especially prescient when it alludes to the 'hurricane' coming Scotland's way) from a few years back by a trans-woman about what led to the current furore:

The inconvenient truth about transwomen - UnHerd

These paragraphs stands out:

The inconvenient truth is that transwomen are male, and — as a group — we present the same hazard that men present. Women can no more differentiate nice trans from nasty trans than they can distinguish nice men from nasty men. Allowing us to declare ourselves to be trans and then immediately self-identify into women’s spaces makes the boundaries meaningless. It is a safeguarding nightmare.

While the Scottish government may claim in their consultation (Para 3.20) that they do “not wish trans people to go through procedures which are demeaning, intrusive, distressing and stressful”, it’s a matter of debate whether being asked to provide medical evidence of a need to change your legal sex is demeaning. I don’t think it is, though like many trans people I have never felt the need to change the sex on my birth certificate in any case. We shouldn’t need to lie about the past in order to live in the present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Interesting article (especially prescient when it alludes to the 'hurricane' coming Scotland's way) from a few years back by a trans-woman about what led to the current furore:

The inconvenient truth about transwomen - UnHerd

These paragraphs stands out:

The inconvenient truth is that transwomen are male, and — as a group — we present the same hazard that men present. Women can no more differentiate nice trans from nasty trans than they can distinguish nice men from nasty men. Allowing us to declare ourselves to be trans and then immediately self-identify into women’s spaces makes the boundaries meaningless. It is a safeguarding nightmare.

While the Scottish government may claim in their consultation (Para 3.20) that they do “not wish trans people to go through procedures which are demeaning, intrusive, distressing and stressful”, it’s a matter of debate whether being asked to provide medical evidence of a need to change your legal sex is demeaning. I don’t think it is, though like many trans people I have never felt the need to change the sex on my birth certificate in any case. We shouldn’t need to lie about the past in order to live in the present.

---

Has this hurricane hit Ireland yet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Has this hurricane hit Ireland yet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

What was it Kezia Dugdale pointed out? Given similar legislation exists in a lot of other countries you have a possible case study from a combined population of approx. 300m (?) to pull data from, yet nothing has happened in those countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Has this hurricane hit Ireland yet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

It's impossible to compare those countries. It would be like comparing a potato to a tumshie.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

It's impossible to compare those countries. It would be like comparing a potato to a tumshie.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

Fair enough, best they get back to shouting sex offender and trans in the same sentence as much as possible and see if that works.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Fair enough, best they get back to shouting sex offender and trans in the same sentence as much as possible and see if that works.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

You really are not liking this one bit, a niche subject that the public don't care about was your analysis. How is that working out?

Quickly forgot about you said, how is that working out?

Nobody really cares?

As pointed out time after time it seems only you and others linking trans people to sex offenders. Even your beloved SNP were shouting down people who keep doing this, and guess what it wasn't people opposed to the Bill it was those like you supporting it who were shouted down by the SNP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

It's impossible to compare those countries. It would be like comparing a potato to a tumshie.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

I think you know your onions 👍

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

You really are not liking this one bit, a niche subject that the public don't care about was your analysis. How is that working out?

Quickly forgot about you said, how is that working out?

Nobody really cares?

As pointed out time after time it seems only you and others linking trans people to sex offenders. Even your beloved SNP were shouting down people who keep doing this, and guess what it wasn't people opposed to the Bill it was those like you supporting it who were shouted down by the SNP.

---

My analysis is still the same. The public still don’t care about this issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

Some people defend the Gender Recognition Bill which allows anyone to declare they are a different sex without the need for a medical certificate of gender dysphoria

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gylb2ABWhuA

---

There's no way I'm going to watch anything involving that absolute snake. The most disingenuous ****** on the planet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

There's no way I'm going to watch anything involving that absolute snake. The most disingenuous ****** on the planet.

---

C'mon now......Snake rights matter. :cb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The justification for that being voted down was that, until found guilty, they're not sex offenders in the eyes of the law at that point. That is why that amendment was replaced by the later one.

---

Except the state can place restrictions on someone accused of a crime. Remand is a restriction of liberty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

The rhetorical habit of mentioning both groups in the same sentence every day, day after day leads to a conflation. There doesn't have to be intent from the writer, the repeated juxtaposition is enough to trigger some folk toward hatred.

Do you monitor every social platform?

What reason would you say there is to explain the increase in hate crimes?


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

I think some care is needed with your use of 'hate crimes'. These are self reported and can be subject to a very wide interpretation. I'm not diminishing the issue, but you need to be clearer what you are actually referring to.

Closer than I thought


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton
·
1h
Do Britons support or oppose the decision of the UK Government to block the gender reform legislation passed by the Scottish parliament? (18 January)

Support 48%
Oppose 21%

Glad only 14% said they shouldn't

RedfieldWilton
1h
At what age do British voters believe people should be allowed to decide to legally change their gender? (18 January)

16: 13%
18: 31%
21: 22%
25: 11%
Never: 14%
Don't know: 9%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Except the state can place restrictions on someone accused of a crime. Remand is a restriction of liberty.

---

Not disagreeing with that. Just interpreting what happened. IIRC, there was some mention of EHRC issues that would have conflicted with the proposed amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think some care is needed with your use of 'hate crimes'. These are self reported and can be subject to a very wide interpretation. I'm not diminishing the issue, but you need to be clearer what you are actually referring to.

---

I don't need to do that at all actually but the stats are in this article.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/polit...ster-scotland/

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Again, 'any man' who did that without a GRC would not have the law on his side should he be challenged over his presence there.

---

Again, a GRC does not grant special legal privileges to people who commit such offences. Saying that a GRC would somehow put the law on their side is based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

The 'Isla Bryson' case, while not relating directly to the bill, does indicate the lengths sexual predators will go to turn a situation to their advantage

---

What advantage? The person in question is going to jail. The same person in question will be isolated from the general prison population as sex offenders generally are. Having a GRC doesn't change any of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Closer than I thought


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton
·
1h
Do Britons support or oppose the decision of the UK Government to block the gender reform legislation passed by the Scottish parliament? (18 January)

Support 48%
Oppose 21%

Glad only 14% said they shouldn't

RedfieldWilton
1h
At what age do British voters believe people should be allowed to decide to legally change their gender? (18 January)

16: 13%
18: 31%
21: 22%
25: 11%
Never: 14%
Don't know: 9%

---

A British poll backing the British Government over the Scottish Government. Shockaroonie.

A male rapist Adam Graham raped two women, after being charged there was a name change to Isla Bryson, in court the victims had to refer to the rapist using the pronouns she/her and the rapist is now in a women only prison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbR9k9f9clU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

A male rapist Adam Graham raped two women, after being charged there was a name change to Isley Bryson, in court the victims had to refer to the rapist using the pronouns she/her and the rapist is now in a women only prison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbR9k9f9clU

---

Do you enjoy Julia Hartley-Brewers "style" of journalism?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

A male rapist Adam Graham raped two women, after being charged there was a name change to Isley Bryson, in court the victims had to refer to the rapist using the pronouns she/her and the rapist is now in a women only prison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbR9k9f9clU

---

Does your right wing, anti-minority source mention that the person in question is also being kept isolated from the general population of prisoners, as is the case with all imprisoned sex offenders in Scotland?

What is their take on how well they think the female guards running the prison will treat this particular individual?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Does your right wing, anti-minority source mention that the person in question is also being kept isolated from the general population of prisoners, as is the case with all imprisoned sex offenders in Scotland?

What is their take on how well they think the female guards running the prison will treat this particular individual?

---

Why are they being kept isolated? A hunch is because a man shouldn't be in a woman's prison, especially a convicted rapist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Does your right wing, anti-minority source mention that the person in question is also being kept isolated from the general population of prisoners, as is the case with all imprisoned sex offenders in Scotland?

What is their take on how well they think the female guards running the prison will treat this particular individual?

---

They will be kept in Ross house it's a shared section with other women, shared showers gym ect. It's populated with largely mentally ill people they don't have enough female sex offenders for a wing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Why are they being kept isolated? A hunch is because a man shouldn't be in a woman's prison, especially a convicted rapist?

---

Sex offenders don't mix with the general population of prisoners for very obvious reasons. Male, female, transgender.... etc. It makes no difference. The same applies regardless.

It's easy just to point out overly simplistic pieces of information such as "male transgender gets sent to female prison", without any additional context applied in order to put those "thoughts" into people's heads. The right wing media excels when it comes to deliberately vague narratives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Sex offenders don't mix with the general population of prisoners for very obvious reasons. Male, female, transgender.... etc. It makes no difference. The same applies regardless.

It's easy just to point out overly simplistic pieces of information such as "male transgender gets sent to female prison", without any additional context applied in order to put those "thoughts" into people's heads. The right wing media excels when it comes to deliberately vague narratives.

---

Do you agree with him being sent to a woman's prison?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Sex offenders don't mix with the general population of prisoners for very obvious reasons. Male, female, transgender.... etc. It makes no difference. The same applies regardless.

It's easy just to point out overly simplistic pieces of information such as "male transgender gets sent to female prison", without any additional context applied in order to put those "thoughts" into people's heads. The right wing media excels when it comes to deliberately vague narratives.

---

Your making it sound like she will be in isolation. She'll be mixed almost exclusively with women who aren't sex offenders, most will have mental health issues

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

They will be kept in Ross house it's a shared section with other women, shared showers gym ect. It's populated with largely mentally ill people they don't have enough female sex offenders for a wing

---

A prisoner can be kept in the same wing, but still be kept isolated. They're given a different schedule from the other prisoners in order to avoid potentially problematic situations.

Prisons are not some free for all like they're depicted in the movies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Again, a GRC does not grant special legal privileges to people who commit such offences. Saying that a GRC would somehow put the law on their side is based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.



What advantage? The person in question is going to jail. The same person in question will be isolated from the general prison population as sex offenders generally are. Having a GRC doesn't change any of that.

---

As I said before, we're not necessarily talking worst case scenario. Simply the fact that the proposed legislation will make it easier for any man who wishes to exploit it to enter women-only spaces.

Re 'Isla', I don't think it's hard to figure that whether isolated or not 'she' would prefer to be housed in a women's prison where she will be a figure of fear for many inmates rather than a men's prison where a convicted rapist would be fearful for their own safety.