The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Not at all. I think this is a really important piece of social policy and related legislation. I think it's better for policy if there is widespread engagement with society rather than policy being something politicians 'do' to people.

---

are you as engaged with other issues as you are with this one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

let me try - no, it's not.

people are concerned that it has, because the media having been cynically bringing up loads of cases NOT affected by the legislation in order to discredit the SNP. i don't personally care for the SNP at all, but i think this is what is happening. it's very similar to Corbyn - they've seen their opening, and they have the crowbars out.

---

Joanna Cherry has probably been one of the biggest opponents online. She is a nightmare for pro gra supporters who want to paint this as an anti spn thing. It's ridiculous, people from across the spectrum are for and against

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Why are Joanna Cherry and Ash Regan ex SNP Minister trying to discredit the SNP? And the others SNP MSPs that voted against it? Why would they look to discredit their own party?

Doesn't really make sense does it.

---

they aren't the media. i'm talking about the stuff that's been in the papers recently and how it has been conflated as being related to the legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

they aren't the media. i'm talking about the stuff that's been in the papers recently and how it has been conflated as being related to the legislation.

---

So are the likes of Joanna Cherry's and Ash Regan's concerns valid and real? If not what has motivated them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Joanna Cherry has probably been one of the biggest opponents online. She is a nightmare for pro gra supporters who want to paint this as an anti spn thing. It's ridiculous, people from across the spectrum are for and against

---

she's also an absolute nightmare for anyone who disagrees with her about anything, often threatening journos with legal action when they refute her claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

she's also an absolute nightmare for anyone who disagrees with her about anything, often threatening journos with legal action when they refute her claims.

---

How can you threaten someone with legal action for having a different opinion? Not sure what you mean here? She is a KC, I reckon she knows what she is doing regards the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

she's also an absolute nightmare for anyone who disagrees with her about anything, often threatening journos with legal action when they refute her claims.

---

That's ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Not at all. I think this is a really important piece of social policy and related legislation. I think it's better for policy if there is widespread engagement with society rather than policy being something politicians 'do' to people.

---

What would your "widespread engagement with society" look like?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

That's ridiculous.

---

It's literally true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

let me try - no, it's not.

people are concerned that it has, because the media having been cynically bringing up loads of cases NOT affected by the legislation in order to discredit the SNP. i don't personally care for the SNP at all, but i think this is what is happening. it's very similar to Corbyn - they've seen their opening, and they have the crowbars out.

---

I don't think it's the media that have made that question a tricky one to answer. As another poster has pointed out the Haldane ruling means there is scope for legal challenge. I don't think you'd find too many politicians queuing up to give a definitive answer now.

It's certainly notable that Scottish Labour appear to have gone into hiding in the wake of the prisons fiasco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Joanna Cherry has probably been one of the biggest opponents online. She is a nightmare for pro gra supporters who want to paint this as an anti spn thing. It's ridiculous, people from across the spectrum are for and against

---

In an amazing development - different people can oppose the same thing for different reasons! Shockeroony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

are you as engaged with other issues as you are with this one?

---

Yes - but it's dominating things at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

So are the likes of Joanna Cherry's and Ash Regan's concerns valid and real? If not what has motivated them?

---

People have real concerns about the GRA. Nine SNP MSP's broke party whip to vote against it, so people making out that folk are either for it or against along the lines of whether they support the SNP or not just doesn't stack up.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/people...y-whip-3896044

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

People have real concerns about the GRA. Nine SNP MSP's broke party whip to vote against it, so people making out that folk are either for it or against along the lines of whether they support the SNP or not just doesn't stack up.

https://www.herald.com/politics/2320...ition-reforms/

---

That's true. But it also works both ways. All the media focus is on "the split in the SNP", while completely ignoring the MSPs from other parties that voted in favour of the bill, despite the clear divisions from other MSPs in their party and the one's from their London counterparts.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this bill was backed by 86 MSPs to 39.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

That's ridiculous.

---

here - she actually went through the courts to seek the apology and didn't get it

here - basically intimidating people who publicly disagree with her.

i'm not saying she's a completely bad egg or anything, she just isn't the saint that she's made out to be either - she's a lawyer, after all. but these cases aren't exactly in the spirit of free and vigorous public discourse.

i'm not passing judgement on the validity of her concerns here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

What would your "widespread engagement with society" look like?

---

That's a hell of a question. Ireland led on citizens assemblies on contentious subjects. It was tried here in a rather garbled way. That could be a mechanism. But there's a wider practice issue here. There's a fairly tight policy community in Scotland, encompassing the government, think tanks/lobbyists, third sector bodies and academics. Often people can jump between these groups - Kezia Dugdale would be an example (and that's not a criticism). It's very easy for legislators to focus their engagement there. People know how the system works and speak the same language. We've spoken before about consultations and how they aren't votes. But it's much harder to evaluate individual views than those of representative bodies. So it becomes a self justifying circle of opinion forming.

I think issues blow up in politico's face when they try to drive things through without really selling it to the wider public. On the Gender Reform bill, there have been complaints that a very small activist group of the policy community was coopted and given undue access to the process. Is it true? I don't know, but there does seem to be failings on who was allowed into and excluded from the policy making and legislative process. In addition, there wasn't a clear articulated policy position on what SG wanted to do that had been tested with the public - the SNP manifesto was vague on it. So an arguably skewed policy making environment and uncooperative legislative process has, in my view, led to flawed legislation. The government didn't take all of it's own side with it and the legislation was passed through a complex mix of motivations. It's arguable that Labour's confused position came down to simply not wanting to be seen to vote with the Tories.

Because of the process the legislation started springing leaks right away. There is confusion about definitions, a lack of understanding of some of the implications, and widespread public confusion. And then the catastrophic failures around the prisons issue. I believe had there been fuller open engagement earlier in the process then some of these issues might have been avoided. And we wouldn't have had the toxic debate where an SG Minister would choose to resign. It would also have been better if it hadn't got wrapped into the constitution question.

So how do we engage better? here's some ideas:

- Be upfront about what you want to do in advance
- Have clarity on what the issue is and how you want to solve it
- Don't just listen to the people who agree with you and don't exclude dissenting voices
- Consider ways to have a conversation like a citizens assembly or task force to actually consider issues and come up with options.

I'm conscious that those directly affected could say that it's not fair to have people debate their existence. The thing is, I don't think the majority of people are doing that. Even on here, I don't get the sense that the issue is opposition to trans people. But I do sense a significant pushback where people are excluded from the process and told their views are not valid.

As ever open to thoughts and critique.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

here - she actually went through the courts to seek the apology and didn't get it

here - basically intimidating people who publicly disagree with her.

i'm not saying she's a completely bad egg or anything, she just isn't the saint that she's made out to be either - she's a lawyer, after all. but these cases aren't exactly in the spirit of free and vigorous public discourse.

i'm not passing judgement on the validity of her concerns here.

---

I think given the level of threat she has faced I'll give her a pass.https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,j...ed-to-rape-her

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

That's true. But it also works both ways. All the media focus is on "the split in the SNP", while completely ignoring the MSPs from other parties that voted in favour of the bill, despite the clear divisions from other MSPs in their party and the one's from their London counterparts.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this bill was backed by 86 MSPs to 39.

---

Pretty obvious the governing party, who are the architects of the bill, will command the most media attention on this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

here - she actually went through the courts to seek the apology and didn't get it

here - basically intimidating people who publicly disagree with her.

i'm not saying she's a completely bad egg or anything, she just isn't the saint that she's made out to be either - she's a lawyer, after all. but these cases aren't exactly in the spirit of free and vigorous public discourse.

i'm not passing judgement on the validity of her concerns here.

---

Kc challenges people over deformation is hardly a shock. I doubt anyone says she's a Saint, I disagree with half of what she says, but she and others put to bed the shout that it's an anti snp war

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

That's a hell of a question. Ireland led on citizens assemblies on contentious subjects. It was tried here in a rather garbled way. That could be a mechanism. But there's a wider practice issue here. There's a fairly tight policy community in Scotland, encompassing the government, think tanks/lobbyists, third sector bodies and academics. Often people can jump between these groups - Kezia Dugdale would be an example (and that's not a criticism). It's very easy for legislators to focus their engagement there. People know how the system works and speak the same language. We've spoken before about consultations and how they aren't votes. But it's much harder to evaluate individual views than those of representative bodies. So it becomes a self justifying circle of opinion forming.

I think issues blow up in politico's face when they try to drive things through without really selling it to the wider public. On the Gender Reform bill, there have been complaints that a very small activist group of the policy community was coopted and given undue access to the process. Is it true? I don't know, but there does seem to be failings on who was allowed into and excluded from the policy making and legislative process. In addition, there wasn't a clear articulated policy position on what SG wanted to do that had been tested with the public - the SNP manifesto was vague on it. So an arguably skewed policy making environment and uncooperative legislative process has, in my view, led to flawed legislation. The government didn't take all of it's own side with it and the legislation was passed through a complex mix of motivations. It's arguable that Labour's confused position came down to simply not wanting to be seen to vote with the Tories.

Because of the process the legislation started springing leaks right away. There is confusion about definitions, a lack of understanding of some of the implications, and widespread public confusion. And then the catastrophic failures around the prisons issue. I believe had there been fuller open engagement earlier in the process then some of these issues might have been avoided. And we wouldn't have had the toxic debate where an SG Minister would choose to resign. It would also have been better if it hadn't got wrapped into the constitution question.

So how do we engage better? here's some ideas:

- Be upfront about what you want to do in advance
- Have clarity on what the issue is and how you want to solve it
- Don't just listen to the people who agree with you and don't exclude dissenting voices
- Consider ways to have a conversation like a citizens assembly or task force to actually consider issues and come up with options.

I'm conscious that those directly affected could say that it's not fair to have people debate their existence. The thing is, I don't think the majority of people are doing that. Even on here, I don't get the sense that the issue is opposition to trans people. But I do sense a significant pushback where people are excluded from the process and told their views are not valid.

As ever open to thoughts and critique.

---

Ta.

I'm interested in how the Irish system is viewed. I have colleagues in Ireland who think their system of public engagement is poor, that it is weighted too much towards the religious establishment. They are envious of our system, as are many in England.

Those who do engage with the political process always judge it on how "they" have been treated. I have been involved in 5 or 6 exercises like this. I have experienced feelings of it being "superb" and of it being "biased as f". Only once did I feel that the Government of the day "got it right". That kind of supports my point.

The system isn't perfect; any consultation exercise which encourages cutting-and-pasting of the same points ad nauseam is bound to be flawed. But ,returning to my first point, IMO it's more open than it appears to be with our neighbours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Pretty obvious the governing party, who are the architects of the bill, will command the most media attention on this issue.

---

Then you would expect that media attention to be positive. Being the governing party and managing to gain cross party support to achieve a rather convincing result.

But we both know that it's anything but positive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

I don't think anyone could confidently provide a simple yes or no answer.

---

So it's no until proven otherwise which is a simple yes or no answer without the whole whataboutery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

So it's no until proven otherwise.

---

One thing to come out of the last round of amendments was a recognition of the need to issue guidance to all public bodies on the practical implications of the GRRA.

For obvious reasons, that won't be happening for a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Kc challenges people over deformation is hardly a shock. I doubt anyone says she's a Saint, I disagree with half of what she says, but she and others put to bed the shout that it's an anti snp war

---

it's not a shock, but it's not really ok either.

i'm certainly not saying that the whole thing is an anti-SNP war - what i mean, though, is that as of the UK parliament blocking the bill, the issue is being weaponised in the press to undermine Sturgeon and by extension, independence. i absolutely don't hold Cherry in any way accountable for that, obvioulsy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think given the level of threat she has faced I'll give her a pass.https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,j...ed-to-rape-her

---

it's absolutely appalling what's been thrown at her, and at JKR, and pretty much any woman with a public profile who has spoken out on the issue. that doesn't make it ok to intimidate people who disagree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

So it's no until proven otherwise which is a simple yes or no answer without the whole whataboutery.

---

There's no whataboutery and it's not a yes or no. Legal experts have pointed to potential issues that can only be resolved by the courts. The idea that it's a no until proven otherwise doesn't really stack up I'm afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

There's no whataboutery and it's not a yes or no. Legal experts have pointed to potential issues that can only be resolved by the courts. The idea that it's a no until proven otherwise doesn't really stack up I'm afraid.

---

Has anyone been refused same sex care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

So it's no until proven otherwise which is a simple yes or no answer without the whole whataboutery.

---

Here's a large study on that question with points made from both sides. No one could give a definite answer to yes or no. There is many laws and views that contradict each other. Its really silly to just ask for a yes or no to such an argued over question with many different interpretations

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2022/05/20/the-potential-for-gra-reform-to-affect-who-can-access-single-sex-services-briefing-for-msps/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Here's a large study on that question with points made from both sides. No one could give a definite answer to yes or no. There is many laws and views that contradict each other. Its really silly to just ask for a yes or no to such an argued over question with many different interpretations

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2022/05/20/the-potential-for-gra-reform-to-affect-who-can-access-single-sex-services-briefing-for-msps/

---

Has anyone been refused same sex care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Has anyone been refused same sex care?

---

How would that ever be public, its a ridiculous question. What has went public is single sex prisons, female shelters and rape crisis centres having trans females

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Has anyone been refused same sex care?

---

Do you know the answer? If not how do you know if it's true or false?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

How would that ever be public, its a ridiculous question. What has went public is single sex prisons, female shelters and rape crisis centres having trans females

---

I'm talking about same sex care, it's been put out there as a problem. I just want to know if anyone has been refused it due to the transgender bill. If so then please point me to an example, otherwise it's pure fear mongering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

I'm talking about same sex care, it's been put out there as a problem. I just want to know if anyone has been refused it due to the transgender bill. If so then please point me to an example, otherwise it's pure fear mongering.

---

The bill isn't law yet, so it can't have been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

I'm talking about same sex care, it's been put out there as a problem. I just want to know if anyone has been refused it due to the transgender bill. If so then please point me to an example, otherwise it's pure fear mongering.

---

The transgender bill isn’t law so no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Do you know the answer? If not how do you know if it's true or false?

---

Something like that would be all over the scare tabloids. Until I see evidence that it's actually happened then I'll file it under scare mongering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Something like that would be all over the scare tabloids. Until I see evidence that it's actually happened then I'll file it under scare mongering.

---

So you don't know either. 👍

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

The transgender bill isn’t law so no.

---

There, that wasn't too difficult. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

I'm talking about same sex care, it's been put out there as a problem. I just want to know if anyone has been refused it due to the transgender bill. If so then please point me to an example, otherwise it's pure fear mongering.

---

It's been put out there as one of many female rights that could be eroded. There was an article here about a heavily disabled woman who had short term memory loss. She said she was petrified of a trans female having the right as a legal female to give her intimate care. Someone on here said her fears are invalid because she is worried about hypotheticals. It was one of the worst things I've read on the thread. It's about hard gained rights being taken away.

But to answer your ridiculous question again. That information about someone's care would not be public knowledge. The person also wouldn't be able to ask to see a gra by law so wouldn't know, they would be legally female

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

So you don't know either. 👍

---

But you guys are claiming it's a real and present danger, surely you can back up your claims with facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

It's been put out there as one of many female rights that could be eroded. There was an article here about a heavily disabled woman who had short term memory loss. She said she was petrified of a trans female having the right as a legal female to give her intimate care. Someone on here said her fears are invalid because she is worried about hypotheticals. It was one of the worst things I've read on the thread. It's about hard gained rights being taken away.

But to answer your ridiculous question again. That information about someone's care would not be public knowledge. The person also wouldn't be able to ask to see a gra by law so wouldn't know, they would be legally female

---

Did that woman have care refused because of her valid fears or did she have a transgender female forced upon her. I'm guessing she more than likely received care from a biological female.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Did that woman have care refused because of her valid fears or did she have a transgender female forced upon her. I'm guessing she more than likely received care from a biological female.

---

Her point is she will be living in fear as she wouldn't be able to ask or know if she was trans. How would she know no one would be allowed to tell her

Are you another one saying her fears aren't valid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

But you guys are claiming it's a real and present danger, surely you can back up your claims with facts.

---

Women are saying it's a concern for them, who are we to tell these women they are wrong and their concerns are stupid and they just need to get on with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Her point is she will be living in fear as she wouldn't be able to ask or know if she was trans. How would she know no one would be allowed to tell her

Are you another one saying her fears aren't valid

---

Read my post, I already said her fears are valid, all fears and phobias are valid but not always rational.

You guys are arguing hypotheticals, using that logic we all need to believe in God or at least accept his possible existence because other people believe in him/her/it, sorry but until I see proof it's just hypothetical and therefore scare mongering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Read my post, I already said her fears are valid, all fears and phobias are valid but not always rational.

You guys are arguing hypotheticals, using that logic we all need to believe in God or at least accept his possible existence because other people believe in him/her/it, sorry but until I see proof it's just hypothetical and therefore scare mongering.

---

This to me is pretty disgusting to be honest. Equating disabled people saying a ruling opens up an avenue to different biological sex care to a phobia or believing in God

This isn't a hypothetical her fear is enough and her rights and others are enough. Both sides of the debate really show themselves up sometimes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Women are saying it's a concern for them, who are we to tell these women they are wrong and their concerns are stupid and they just need to get on with it.

---

They maybe concerned and it might be valid but is it rational? Have there been previous cases where patients have been refused same sex care? Do you really believe that a transsexual carer would want to or be forced to care for someone objected to them caring for them? That's just mental.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

This to me is pretty disgusting to be honest. Equating disabled people saying a ruling opens up an avenue to different biological sex care to a phobia or believing in God

This isn't a hypothetical her fear is enough and her rights and others are enough. Both sides of the debate really show themselves up sometimes

---

That's a common held belief from the anti-trans side of the debate, that somehow believing that trans people should be accepted is disgusting. I can live with that.

Not sure if this is the case being discussed.

https://www.transgendertrend.com/sev...-under-threat/


If it is:-

It's not Scottish, so the GRA/GRRB isn't relevant.

It's been imposed by the local authority, apparently to comply with the Equality Act.


If it's not, the EA still affects any similar Scottish cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

That's a common held belief from the anti-trans side of the debate, that somehow believing that trans people should be accepted is disgusting. I can live with that.

---

Way to twist they views. Disgusting is saying someone with a disabilities wishes are irrelevant and irrational.

Trans people should and must be accepted, but not at the detriment to women's rights. There needs to be some caveats and I'm sure they will come as they have in prisons this week

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

But you guys are claiming it's a real and present danger, surely you can back up your claims with facts.

---

This is a bizarre line of argument. If Hibs said they were only going to play 16 year olds on Saturday. I would raise concerns about us getting thumped. Using your argument I would be fear mongering as I couldn't prove that decision had led to a defeat, because it hadn't happened yet.

No one has said the phrase clear and present danger. But people, not just on here, have raised concerns about the potential impact of the legislation. But until it's enacted we can't know.

I sense you are angry about the issue, but I'm afraid no one can give you the certainty you crave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Not sure if this is the case being discussed.

https://www.transgendertrend.com/sev...-under-threat/


If it is:-

It's not Scottish, so the GRA/GRRB isn't relevant.

It's been imposed by the local authority, apparently to comply with the Equality Act.

If it's not, the EA still affects any similar Scottish cases.

---

Pretty much makes a mockery of the UK government's meddling in Scottish affairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Way to twist they views. Disgusting is saying someone with a disabilities wishes are irrelevant and irrational.

Trans people should and must be accepted, but not at the detriment to women's rights. There needs to be some caveats and I'm sure they will come as they have in prisons this week

---

I'm sure they will too, so why the outrage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Not sure if this is the case being discussed.

https://www.transgendertrend.com/sev...-under-threat/


If it is:-

It's not Scottish, so the GRA/GRRB isn't relevant.

It's been imposed by the local authority, apparently to comply with the Equality Act.


If it's not, the EA still affects any similar Scottish cases.

---

It's not it was Henrietta Freeman. Her fear is Scottish care providers and charities will go the way rape crisis charities and some women's refuges have gone and say trans women are literally women. If they did then it would be same sex care

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

This is a bizarre line of argument. If Hibs said they were only going to play 16 year olds on Saturday. I would raise concerns about us getting thumped. Using your argument I would be fear mongering as I couldn't prove that decision had led to a defeat, because it hadn't happened yet.

No one has said the phrase clear and present danger. But people, not just on here, have raised concerns about the potential impact of the legislation. But until it's enacted we can't know.

I sense you are angry about the issue, but I'm afraid no one can give you the certainty you crave.

---

My argument is bizarre but you then use an analogy comparing the transgender bill to Hibs playing a team of 16 year old :faf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Not sure if this is the case being discussed.

https://www.transgendertrend.com/sev...-under-threat/


If it is:-

It's not Scottish, so the GRA/GRRB isn't relevant.

It's been imposed by the local authority, apparently to comply with the Equality Act.


If it's not, the EA still affects any similar Scottish cases.

---

It's not. The woman in question is a quadriplegic who feels very vulnerable if she doesn't have female only care. I'd say it's a campaign rather than a legal challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

I'm sure they will too, so why the outrage?

---

Because there isn't at the minute. Katie dolatowski was placed in a female refuge and is now in a female prison. You might say it's irrational but some women will be scared of trans women being in refuges and prisons now. People with disabilities will be worried that trans female will be seen as females by some care providers.

The only caveat so far that has been brought in is because public outrage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

It's not it was Henrietta Freeman. Her fear is Scottish care providers and charities will go the way rape crisis charities and some women's refuges have gone and say trans women are literally women. If they did then it would be same sex care

---

Thanks for clarifying.

But the point stands that the EA seems to have primacy, which would also be the case in Scotland. So nothing to do with anything we may or may not (be allowed to) pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

My argument is bizarre but you then use an analogy comparing the transgender bill to Hibs playing a team of 16 year old :faf:

---

So how does the analogy not work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Pretty much makes a mockery of the UK government's meddling in Scottish affairs.

---

If that were the case any judicial review raised by the SG would win. It's about the Bill's impact on the UK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Thanks for clarifying.

But the point stands that the EA seems to have primacy, which would also be the case in Scotland. So nothing to do with anything we may or may not (be allowed to) pass.

---

You can see how she is doubtful when that also should go for rape crisis centres and women's refuges. They can be protected by law but as we've seen recently it's up to the provider. There's hundreds of care groups, one could choose to say trans women are women, especially when gra is opened up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

So how does the analogy not work?

---

Because there is precedent for young unexperienced teams getting thumped, there is none for people being refused same sex care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Because there is precedent for young unexperienced teams getting thumped, there is none for people being refused same sex care.

---

But it would be same sex care. The same as it was a same sex women's refuge katie dolatowski went to, same sex prison or same sex rape crisis support. That's what a gra is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Because there is precedent for young unexperienced teams getting thumped, there is none for people being refused same sex care.

---

So you accept that it's possible to take a view on something that hasn't yet happened, based on other sources of evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

But it would be same sex care. The same as it was a same sex women's refuge katie dolatowski went to, same sex prison or same sex rape crisis support. That's what a gra is

---

Show me an example where same sex care was denied and I'll reconsider my opinion, anything else is whataboutery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Pretty much makes a mockery of the UK government's meddling in Scottish affairs.

---

So the Scottish Government will easily win in court then? Let's see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

So you accept that it's possible to take a view on something that hasn't yet happened, based on other sources of evidence?

---

Yes, but I don't believe women would be denied same sex care based on the Scottish transgender bill. There's zero evidence or reason to believe so unless you want to believe it. Now we're back to the religion analogy but that's apparently disgusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

So the Scottish Government will easily win in court then? Let's see.

---

The court that's a UK government organ you mean? My question is also an answer BTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

So the Scottish Government will easily win in court then? Let's see.

---

A court system that the tories have spent the best part of 12+ years chipping away at through increasingly more draconian legislation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Yes, but I don't believe women would be denied same sex care based on the Scottish transgender bill. There's zero evidence or reason to believe so unless you want to believe it. Now we're back to the religion analogy but that's apparently disgusting.

---

Would you believe women would be denied same sex refuge centres or rape support or prison. I don't think you know what a gra is, it would be same sex care if a trans female was giving it to a biological female.

I've also no idea if trans females are in rape crisis centres or women's refuges right now. How would we know as they are seen as same sex. There is plenty of evidence to believe there is pretty much no female only spaces now. I'd never have believed a woman's refuge would have biological males in it before it came out this week

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

The court that's a UK government organ you mean? My question is also an answer BTW.

---

How is the Court of Session in Edinburgh a UK Government Organ? Are you getting mixed up with the Supreme Court, the one that ruled against the UK Government on Brexit not that long ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

A court system that the tories have spent the best part of 12+ years chipping away at through increasingly more draconian legislation?

---

What the Court of Session in Edinburgh? That's where it's going next.

Niomi Cunningham an employment and discrimination lawyer explains to the women and equality committee why GRA will be a legal nightmare for small businesses to stop transfemales from from female only situations

https://mobile.twitter.com/treesey/s...60497069035520

@treesey
Brilliant from Naomi Cunningham speaking at
@Commonswomequ
explaining how self ID impacts small service providers - the refuge or the spray tanning salon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Niomi Cunningham an employment and discrimination lawyer explains to the women and equality committee why GRA will be a legal nightmare for small businesses to stop transfemales from from female only situations

https://mobile.twitter.com/treesey/s...60497069035520

@treesey
Brilliant from Naomi Cunningham speaking at
@Commonswomequ
explaining how self ID impacts small service providers - the refuge or the spray tanning salon

---

it seems to me that she's talking as though a man could just spontaneously self declare as a woman and walk in to a refuge. would it not still require 6 months of living as a woman to get a GRC under the GRA? my understanding is that the reason for it is that it is currently too difficult for trans people to transition, and that they need to endure a minimum of two years of going into toilets that don't match their gender identity. is there something in the act that i'm missing that makes it a much more imminent and spontaneous risk? i basically though the idea of it is to make it easier, i.e. less awful, to go through gender re-assignment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

it seems to me that she's talking as though a man could just spontaneously self declare as a woman and walk in to a refuge. would it not still require 6 months of living as a woman to get a GRC under the GRA? my understanding is that the reason for it is that it is currently too difficult for trans people to transition, and that they need to endure a minimum of two years of going into toilets that don't match their gender identity. is there something in the act that i'm missing that makes it a much more imminent and spontaneous risk? i basically though the idea of it is to make it easier, i.e. less awful, to go through gender re-assignment.

---

It's 3 months not 6 unless you are 16 or 17. Also you don't need to live as a woman or man, you just fill in a form online and you are now a woman or a man. As it's self ID nobody is checking anything.

After women raised concerns about the GRRB being a threat to women only spaces, we were told the the very idea that a predatory man would lie to gain entry to a woman only space was a transphobic dog whistle, then what we were told wouldn't happen did happen, Adam Graham AKA Isly Bryson a double rapist was in a women only prison. This shows that if you introduce Self-ID laws where any man can claim to be a women and be taken seriously, this will obviously be exploited by dangerous predators.

No-one is suggesting that trans people are predatory, but bad actors will exploit the system like Albert Cabellero who is in Saughton Prison for abducting and raping his female care worker, this person has asked to be called Claire and boasted to fellow inmates that he will be transferred to a female prison before he is released.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...ffenders-jail/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

What the Court of Session in Edinburgh? That's where it's going next.

---

Where will the case ultimately land IF the Court of Sessions waves through the Bill?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Would you believe women would be denied same sex refuge centres or rape support or prison. I don't think you know what a gra is, it would be same sex care if a trans female was giving it to a biological female.

I've also no idea if trans females are in rape crisis centres or women's refuges right now. How would we know as they are seen as same sex. There is plenty of evidence to believe there is pretty much no female only spaces now. I'd never have believed a woman's refuge would have biological males in it before it came out this week

---

I believe if in the unlikely case that a woman was offered a transsexual carer and she refused it, then she would be offered alternative care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Where will the case ultimately land IF the Court of Sessions waves through the Bill?

---

Not sure what you mean, are you saying if the Court of Session "waves through" the Bill it's legal or not? Isn't it to do with the use of the S35 order and was that used correctly.

To ultimately end up in the Supreme Court the SG would need to lose in both the outer and inner court of session held in Edinburgh, the most senior law officer in Scotland is the Lord Advocate who sits in Nicola Sturgeons cabinet.

Why do you think the Court of Session in Edinburgh is a Tory government organ as you described? Even the Supreme Court ruled against the Government on Brexit not that long ago.

You know who else is a fan of saying courts are corrupt and biased, Donald Trump, he does it all the time.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dona...ry?id=69202950

Probably off topic though, so maybe belongs on another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

I believe if in the unlikely case that a woman was offered a transsexual carer and she refused it, then she would be offered alternative care.

---

She would be offered same sex care, she will literally be a woman if the care provider chooses that. Many women who get care are non verbal also. Would you have believed a trans woman would have gone in a female refuge. It seems impossible but it comes out this week that it happens. Would you believe women could have rape crisis meetings with females only. That's also not happening. Some care providers are clearly choosing that trans females are literally women, Haldene ruling obviously furthers this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

She would be offered same sex care, she will literally be a woman if the care provider chooses that. Many women who get care are non verbal also. Would you have believed a trans woman would have gone in a female refuge. It seems impossible but it comes out this week that it happens. Would you believe women could have rape crisis meetings with females only. That's also not happening. Some care providers are clearly choosing that trans females are literally women, Haldene ruling obviously furthers this

---

My mother had what we thought was an irrational fear of one of her carers (it happens), we asked for another, no questions asked and we were provided with another. I think the same would happen if someone felt similar with a transgender woman.

You're argumentation about non verbal patients shines a bit of light on your prejudice, how do we know these patients aren't already terrified of the carers they have for whatever reason? Why are you only concerned about their transgender fear?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

My mother had what we thought was an irrational fear of one of her carers (it happens), we asked for another, no questions asked and we were provided with another. I think the same would happen if someone felt similar with a transgender woman.

You're argumentation about non verbal patients shines a bit of light on your prejudice, how do we know these patients aren't already terrified of the carers they have for whatever reason? Why are you only concerned about their transgender fear?

---

Thankfully I've only encountered the care service twice in the recent past. Both times the carers where changed when requested. Both male and female carers took it in their stride. It happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

My mother had what we thought was an irrational fear of one of her carers (it happens), we asked for another, no questions asked and we were provided with another. I think the same would happen if someone felt similar with a transgender woman.

You're argumentation about non verbal patients shines a bit of light on your prejudice, how do we know these patients aren't already terrified of the carers they have for whatever reason? Why are you only concerned about their transgender fear?

---

You'd think a trans female wouldn't be in a female refuge or rape support centre too, but companies are going with Haldane

My mum worked with severely disabled people since before I can remember, many are family friends. It's not prejudice it's protection. The non verbal clients get female care only as standard where she worked, this is important. I'm concerned as sexual assaults are committed by men simply. Trans females won't be more or less likely to commit assaults, but men are the ones that do.

If the care provider decides to go by the Haldane decision just like some female refuge providers, then it will be seen as female only care.

Female only care isn't the main issue it's one of a huge group of female spaces situations and rights that are being dismissed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Niomi Cunningham an employment and discrimination lawyer explains to the women and equality committee why GRA will be a legal nightmare for small businesses to stop transfemales from from female only situations

https://mobile.twitter.com/treesey/s...60497069035520

@treesey
Brilliant from Naomi Cunningham speaking at
@Commonswomequ
explaining how self ID impacts small service providers - the refuge or the spray tanning salon

---

She sums up the difficulties very succinctly.

Meanwhile I see Sturgeon has now stated that women can be rapists.

I really don't understand a lot of the issues, but an extension of some of the arguments would be banning male anaesthetists from treating female patients. Does this already happen in the UK?

Further to my previous points, if you google "uk doctor rapes patients", you can see many cases. Do I misunderstand something?

A further exchange today at FMQs which was somewhat odd. When asked about the rapist Isla Bryson Nicola Sturgeon said;

“This individual claims to be a woman.

“I don’t have information about whether those claims have validity.”

Isn't that the point of self ID, if someone says they are a woman then they are a woman.

With self ID how do you know if it's valid or not? There are zero checks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

A further exchange today at FMQs which was somewhat odd. When asked about the rapist Isla Bryson Nicola Sturgeon said;

“This individual claims to be a woman.

“I don’t have information about whether those claims have validity.”

Isn't that the point of self ID, if someone says they are a woman then they are a woman.

With self ID how do you know if it's valid or not? There are zero checks.

---

We don't have self-ID yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

We don't have self-ID yet.

---

But she has in the past said a trans woman is a woman. Now she doesn't seem so sure. She also seems to think information should be available to see if a claim is valid or not, under self ID how do you check if a claim is valid of not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

But she has in the past said a trans woman is a woman. Now she doesn't seem so sure. She also seems to think information should be available to see if a claim is valid or not, under self ID how do you check if a claim is valid of not?

---

That's the law as it stands.

Don't you like it? :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That's the law as it stands.

Don't you like it? :greengrin

---

It's changing if they have their way if you say your female got literally are. I'm sure 90% wouldn't bother there arse if that applied to almost all situations bar some female reserved situations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That's the law as it stands.

Don't you like it? :greengrin

---

I think you know I am talking about what would happen under self ID, that's pretty clear.

I am guessing there is no clear answer then, there would very likely be no information to check if it was valid or not.

This goes back to a comment made yesterday when someone said a "legitimate" trans person, how is a legitimate trans person identified versus a non legitimate trans person when it's all done via self ID.

I thought I heard the FM saying today that under the EA that trans women don't automatically get access to women's only spaces as there are exemptions, even those with a GRC.

The EA is on the face of the proposed GRRA

Did I hear correctly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

I thought I heard the FM saying today that under the EA that trans women don't automatically get access to women's only spaces as there are exemptions, even those with a GRC.

The EA is on the face of the proposed GRRA

Did I hear correctly?

---

That's probably still to be tested in court especially in light of the Haldane ruling. That's my understanding. Hence the concern there wasn't the time taken to consider this ruling and the impact it may have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

That's probably still to be tested in court especially in light of the Haldane ruling. That's my understanding. Hence the concern there wasn't the time taken to consider this ruling and the impact it may have.

---

Does the EA not have primacy?

It was put on the face of the bill in an amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Does the EA not have primacy?

It was put on the face of the bill in an amendment.

---

Just because it's in the Bill doesn't make it true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Just because it's in the Bill doesn't make it true.

---

Are you saying the EA isn't actually law then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tubs

I really don't understand a lot of the issues, but an extension of some of the arguments would be banning male anaesthetists from treating female patients. Does this already happen in the UK?

---

I think you understand the ridiculousness of the whole anti-trans debate quite well. Apparently it's only men who pretend to be trans-female that are a danger to vulnerable women needing care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

I thought I heard the FM saying today that under the EA that trans women don't automatically get access to women's only spaces as there are exemptions, even those with a GRC.

The EA is on the face of the proposed GRRA

Did I hear correctly?

---

You'd think so but some providers are going by the Haldene. You'd think a female refuge would be clearly protected as female only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Are you saying the EA isn't actually law then?

---

No, where did you get that from?

I am saying just because the GRA Bill says it doesn't impact the EA doesn't make it true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

You'd think so but some providers are going by the Haldene. You'd think a female refuge would be clearly protected as female only.

---

Is this not where the equality commission comes in with guidance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

No, where did you get that from?

I am saying just because the GRA Bill says it doesn't impact the EA doesn't make it true.

---

Does the EA have primacy on the bill?