Well that's the point of the S35, it should have but it looks like it strays into areas that impact the EA. The courts will decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Printable View
Well that's the point of the S35, it should have but it looks like it strays into areas that impact the EA. The courts will decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
If the EA has primacy on the face of the bill, how can anyone currently with a GRC get into women's spaces if exemptions are in place?
What about the trans women who are victims of rape and need refuge from an abusive partner?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
J
Yes they give guidance. Each provider chooses how to interpret it and the gra themselves. It's muddy and businesses aren't lawyers so with Haldene they will often say trans women are women.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
You'd think a clear cut case would be women's refuges or rape crisis. It seems most places are going with Haldene that trans women are literally women. You can understand the confusion companies face when even the government are confused over prisons
They should be given refuge the same as men need it. That should not be where women are. If there was a need I'd be all for a trans refuge. The sad fact is its men who sexualy assault, so women need safe female only spaces when they are at their most vulnerableQuote:
Originally Posted by Bristolhibby
They can, as long as the owners or users of that space don't object.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
So owners can have policies under the EA, which is on the face of the GRR bill to effectively keep people with a GRC out of women's spaces. Cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It does, one of the (Labour?) amendments voted in to enable the bill get passed in the parliamentary vote was to confirm the EA has primacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
It's why many think the UK Government (Tories ) are simply playing politics... if the new act already states EA has primacy in any unclear situation what's the actual issue with the new legislation? .... unless you.just don't like the whole idea of course.
The exact wording was posted here about 50 pages back (possibly by me :greengrin).Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Sorry G.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Must have missed it. I've only been stepping in and out of this thread, but when I heard the FM speak about it today, I wanted to confirm. 😂
That's good on paper but when prisons, rape crisis and refuges are chosing to mix, you can see most are going with Haldene.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Here is an example someone who transitioned as a teen then realized it was a mistake in California, the reason it is relevant is in light of the de-transitioner's who are currently bringing law suits against the Tavistock as there is no questions being asked about the trans teen social contagion. Teenagers can't possibly know the long term consequences of what they are doing to their bodies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYZ4LIBHabA
I'm no expert, but is the legislation not partly to stop this sort of thing happening?Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
So you are officially a man, but want to be a woman? Now you can be without having to undergo invasive surgery. Then later you realise you made a mistake, or indeed you're at a point in your life where you feel more comfortable 'transitioning back'? That's fine as well.
Like I say, I'm not anywhere near as close to the legislation as some clearly are on here, but to me the general gist of the legislation is in good faith.
I have school age kids, and there are a a significant number of kids at their schools who identify as a gender different to the one they were born with. And as far as I can see, they're completely accepted by their peers. That's massive progress from even 10 years ago. Maybe some need to stop quoting extreme examples to make a point, learn from the kids and accept that the world is changing.
I think we can all agree that the legislation isn't perfect, but legislation rarely is. And surely if there is a rise in violent crime against women in e.g. prisons, then the book will be swiftly opened and amended?
I'll probably be shouted down as being naive or anti-women, but I wish we didn't base all arguments around the worst case scenarios.
https://archive.ph/o4ELb
Isla Bryson ‘almost certainly’ masquerading as trans, says Sturgeon
You know it's bad for Sturgeon when she gets made to look utterly daft by Douglas Ross of all people. Insisting that Bryson is neither man nor woman, just 'a rapist'...what the **** is she on about?! I almost felt pity for her stooge (Jenny Gilruth) on Question Time just now having to parrot the same line. Needless to say she was shot down in flames by the excellent Ella Whelan - and all but laughed off the panel by the studio audience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Was Jenny Gilruth wearing Sturgeons Hibs away outfit? Looked very similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
There's a real legal question as to whether simply saying that makes any difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
A nastier piece of work I’ve not seen on Question Time for a while. Pretty much said we should bring our children up properly so they don’t become trans/gay! 😮Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Apart from being a nasty piece of work, also very rude and talking over others when it was their turn to reply.
Excellent you say? 🤔
Felt for India Willoughby on Question Time, it was like she was a lone voice. The woman in the audience who wasn't even having it with trans woman who had fully medically transitioned using female toilets was away with it, totally ignorant. How would she even be able to tell. :rolleyes:
She spoke like a 1970s homophobe. A real nasty piece of work. And you say excellent :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Jenny Gilruth kept calling Adam Graham AKA Isly Bryson "The Individual" look at her response when asked if "The Individual" is a man or a woman, priceless.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODO0HpyWZMI
‘Fast track surgery’? Shouldn’t be a problem in the UK then. [emoji849]Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The majority of the audience and I'd suggest the wider population would disagree with you. Nasty you say?Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
Why won't she answer if 'The Individual" is man or a woman? If the answer is because they don't have enough information on them as suggested then can anyone explain how under self ID people get this information required to work out if someone is legitimate or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
This is what happens when an ideology comes crashing into the real world. They need to go back and work through some of these issues again and come up with an answer that is perhaps a compromise that meets the majority of concerns on both sides.
It's base level debate, that is. Using an extreme example to demand a yes/no answer. If people stop to think for just a few seconds, they'll see that the wool is being pulled over their eyes by bigots likes her. The debate is way more complex than this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crunchie
Sent from my YAL-L21 using Tapatalk
Indeed. When the majority of a Glasgow Question Time audience are applauding a Conservative MP calling for a rethink on the legislation you know Sturgeon has got something wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
What was 'bigoted' about highlighting the lunacy of being unable to define whether Bryson is a man or a woman? She was only articulating majority public opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by McSwanky
The reason for the tumbleweed following most of Willoughby's comments was that she kept trying to frame the debate around Bryson/prisons and the SG legislation as anti-trans when for the vast majority that's not the case. The erosion of women's rights - and indeed the erosion of 'woman' as a biological concept - is what concerns most.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
Checking out what women are wearing now. 😓Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Yes, you’ll never get a pro unionist question time audience. [emoji849][emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lol, you are so desperate to score points against me you pick this? If I remember correctly it was mentioned numerous times on here during the Covid briefings when Sturgeon wore a very similar Hibs looking outfit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Yes that must have been the reason they didn't have any truck with a multiple rapist pretending to be a woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The only person using extreme examples was India, I suggest you're the one having the wool pulled over your eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by McSwanky
If you're not of a left leaning opinion you have to be very careful how you word/say something on here and in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Not point scoring at all. Just seeing your post for what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Any comment on the mens clothes?
Yes they all looked very smart. Funny I don't remember you saying anything when the any other poster commented on the Hibs resemblance before or being critical of posters when attacking Liz Truss for her looks etc. I will make a special point of checking out if you criticise other posters next time they comment on a female politician. 👍Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Did I imagine the previous comments from various posters about Sturgeon wearing an outfit that looked like the Hibs away top? Can you remember?
So the men looked smart but the women are wearing someone else's clothes.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Gotcha.
I am just glad you are defending woman, well done. You seemed to be hesitant to offer an opinion before. Do you think the rapist is a man or a woman? That's getting us right back on track isn't it. Do you agree with Keith Brown who says she is a woman or Nicola Sturgeon who doesn't seem to know?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Why does it have to be complex? A rapist can only be a man and everyone knows that. The nonsense of gender identity politics was exposed by calling a rapist "The Individual", and trying to make it complex. It's not bigoted to asks if "The Individual" is a man or a woman, human beings can only be one or the other, it exposed how Gender Identity politics ties people in knots, and all of the audience could see that. It seems like your using words like bigot because you know the person you were supporting lost the argument in-front of a nation wide audience.Quote:
Originally Posted by McSwanky
His comments sum up what the extreme left are all about, pretty pathetic really. FWIW I think her outfit was eye catching for the colour too :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Im glad you're glad. Good for you. 😊Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Given the two protagonists on QT last night at different ends of the spectrum on this threads content, I'd say, if I was to go back in time, one of them would have had a sign with, no blacks, Irish, or dogs in their window. The other one not so much.
You choose which is which.
Anyone claiming there's 'nuance' to the Bryson case is inevitably going to be left looking daft.Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Sorry but I asked you what you think, do you think the rapist is a man or a woman?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Like you said to me last night, you have not answered the question.
It's complex because it's a way bigger issue than just the prisons issue. But folks like Douglas Ross and Ella Whelan are successfully diverting the debate to be ALL about side issues like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
I'd like to think most people agree that people should be allwed to live the life they want without fear of discrimination or worse, and for me that's what this legislation is about. As I said before, it's not perfect - and will no doubt be subject to more amendment and debate in the future to make it work for everyone. But the intentions are hopefully something people can get behind rather than this constant back and forth around the prisons issue - which existed before this legislation was a thing.
As for the coments earlier about 'articulating majority public opinion' - if we always went with majority public opinion, we'd be in an even worse state than we already are in this country. Especially with the nick of our press. There's nothing wrong with doing the right thing despite majority public opinion.
That's not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Intersex people are both and neither, and a biological reality . They are the I in LGBTQIA.
This might help:-
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...ed-to-shatter/
I've no idea at what stage of transitioning the rapist is.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
However when he raped those women he was a man.
Do you know what stage of transitioning the rapist is currently at?
But the trans ideology that the SG support says a man is a woman if they say so, this rapist says they are woman so aren't you being transphobic by not saying he is a woman? Why does it matter where they are on their journey, if they say they are a woman then they are a woman?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
You don't need to transition or take hormones etc, you are just a woman because you say you are. That's the whole point of self ID.
So if the GRA was passed you are comfortable with men just saying they are women because they say they are, doesn't sound like you are if you need to now where they are in their transition journey.
See this is what happens, people tie themselves in knots as you have shown.
I've given you the answer you asked for as the law currently stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
The rest of your hypotheticals are just that. Hypothetical.
Claimed at the trial to be taking hormones and now wanting surgery but the reality is that his 'transitioning' extends only to putting on a wig, make-up and a pink jacket. Even Sturgeon was forced to concede he's a fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
You are actually breaking the SNPs own code of conduct on transphobia. It states:Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Transphobia may manifest in a number of ways, including, but not limited to:
"using phrases or language to suggest [someone’s] gender identity is not valid"
If the rapist says she is a woman then she is a woman according to the SNP code of conduct. Keith Brown Deputy Leader was clear, the rapist is a woman when he was asked. You are questioning on what stage on their journey this person is and not accepting they are a woman. Therefore breaking the rule above suggesting someone's gender identity is not valid as you wanted to know if they were taking hormones or has surgery etc. Only then could you decide if the person was a woman.
The whole point of self ID is someone is a woman if they say they are, nothing to do with where they are on a transition journey.
Under the SNPs code you would be transphobic, but I reckon you aren't, you probably like most of us want a solution that meets the needs of the majority on both sides.
When ideology crashes into the real world. It ties people in knots.
This is an interesting thread from an advocate on the issues around the rapist case, FM answer yesterday and self ID.
https://twitter.com/Broonjunior/stat...49053416689666
Sturgeon has lost the plot.
So now the snp government can decide your gender.
Which one is it nicky?!?
Looking through your recent posts on the subject, there seems to be quite a lot of bluster and emotion in them, mixed with your usual attempts at trying to make out that everything which happens in this world is the SNP's fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
The GRR Bill had cross party support in Holyrood and whether you agree with its passing or not, the subject itself is apolitical.
What is political, is the Westminster Government blocking the Bill, which had gone through years of scrutiny. They have had ample time to make comment on the Bill, but chose the nuclear option after it was passed.
I found Ms Gilruth's claim on QT last night telling, i.e, that the Westminster Government, when pressed by the SG during recent conversations to outline what they think needs to be changed in the Bill, refused to say. That to me suggests that the blocking is all about putting Holyrood in their place rather than any interest in improving the content.
Did you read that in the Daily Mail or Express?Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoDoidge
Also interesting how you, those facsist rags and tory mouthpieces like the BBC always refer to Scotland's first minister by her surname v nice wee Rishi or Sir Keir.
What's your view them? Is the rapist a man or a woman?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes
My view that he was a man when he raped is a view held in many parties across the spectrum, and within the SNP.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Contrary to popular unionist belief, we are allowed to have a different view on such topics.
Watching QT last night it's all become very noisy from some who don't want to listen. The abuse India Willoughby has taken this morning is well out of order.
As might this https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/...-sean-carroll/Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
https://twitter.com/esqueer_/status/...zkfKy3acNzA_zw
Quite a coalition getting built.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am not asking what he was when he raped, of course he was a man as in law only a man can commit rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
I am asking you what do you believe "the individual" is now, a woman or a man?
I know you are determined to make this about 'unionists' but do you acknowledge that many 'nationalists' have real issues with the legislation?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I already said I've no idea where he/she is in their transitioning under the current UK law. Do they have a GRC? Have they been medically assessed?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
But by asking these questions you are rejecting the idea a man is a woman if they say they are, that's the whole point of self ID. You want more information and details on this person before you can make a judgment, the very thing that is being abolished under self ID.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
By not agreeing this individual is a woman you would be transphobic under the SNP code of conduct.
https://twitter.com/MhairiHunter/sta...Xz8nZCzgw&s=19
I know your very likely not, but you meet that definition.
It's a mess and both governments need to sort it out.
Im asking you the questions. If you can't answer, that's fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
I have no idea about his private medical history. Why does that matter? Why do you want his private medical history, what judgment would it help you make exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Just leave it if you like, it's tying you in knots.
It's been the full gamut today. Anyone raising questions is a racist, homophobe, transphobe, unionist, anti-Irish, living in the 1970s, emotional, blustering and now a Trumpist. Any I've missed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Under the SG legislation none of that would matter. The distinction FM tried to draw yesterday would be largely meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
I'm genuinely trying to find out how far they've come in their transitioning. I was told this morning that he's had some hormone treatment, but as you don't know, I cant then say if he's now transitioned fully. I'll have to take the SPS word for it, that he's still a man.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Whether they have had surgery or hormones makes no difference. Again the SNP Code of Conduct.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
"Trans people may describe themselves in a variety of terms, and do not need to have undergone any medical or social transition to be described as trans"
I am not sure why you need medical information?
The SPS never said he was a man. Keith Brown said she was a woman.
It's ok to say actually maybe this isn't the best piece of legislation.
I'm not sure transitioning back is a straightforward as you think under the Scottish legislation. It's a permanent switch https://www.gov.scot/news/gender-rec...m-bill-passed/Quote:
Originally Posted by McSwanky
I'm certain members and supporters of all parties will have genuine issues with it, as is the case with the majority of legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I'm also certain a significant number of people (and posters) would not be raising their 'concerns' if this wasn't so strongly tied to Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP.
Joanna cherry will be in trouble, or maybe she just has a different view. The SPS, on the other hand will be in trouble for sending a woman into Saughton.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
That might be true, but it's not my motivation. I am sure that we wouldn't be getting the defend at all costs arguments from SNP supporters either.Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeRussell
Aye, SNPphobes.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Why is it do you think that people like Trump and Putin publicly proclaim themselves as trans-phobes.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Why Joanna Cherry? It was FM that questioned their trans status.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Is Ash Regan an SNP phone?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes
That doesn't ring a bell. 🔔Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...d577c277bf.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I fell asleep before QT last night - will probably catch the later version in a few days. I did wake up to a couple of messages suggesting there had been the token shouty, bigoted dinosaur on the panel though. And just viewing a couple of 'highlights' now.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
Must say I am utterly shocked to learn which of our regular HG posters thought her performance was brilliant. As long as someone's putting "Sturgeon" in her place though eh.
Maybe that explains the death and rape threat's from SNP members she gets? And all the SNP members who wanted her thrown out the party?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
The FM questioned the status of the individual yesterday at FMQ, like you she is going against the partys own code of conduct. If someone says they are a woman they are a woman, if you question it you are transphobic.
They are exploiting the trans issue because they can see a political opportunity. For Putin it allows him to portray himself as a defender of Russian values against a degenerate West. Russia is very conservative socially, so this plays well. For Trump it meets a number of objectives. It aligns with the socially conservative people in the US. But it also gives him an in with people who have concerns, but are told their views are not valid. For me one of the biggest tactical issues with gender reform was the bludgeoning of opposition and the smearing of anyone with any concerns. That allows the likes of Trump to fill that space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
I'm no expert on the subject of equality law, but I think under current legislation (not the proposed Bill or future law), a person who wants to change their gender, needs to have applied for and be in possession of a Gender Reform Certificate (to have their new gender affirmed).Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
In the case of the convicted rapist, I don't know if they are in possession of a GRC or not. If they have one, then I'd say the person is a woman and if they don't, then the person is a man.
I don't particularly care for India Whilloughby, but I think that's harsh.Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeRussell
The right certainly seem willing to jump into this issue with glee.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I see what you've done there, very clever.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
So you also don't buy into the theory if a man says they are a woman they are a woman and can self ID?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes
It's quite interesting that when you actually get down to the detail very few people seem to support the SG plans for self ID. Even it seems our most hardened SNP supporters on here.
It's not surprising though as that seems to be the majority position.
That would all be very well if the SG were doing the right thing. The reason, however, that there's such fervent public opposition to the legislation is because it's doing the wrong thing (diminishing women's rights).Quote:
Originally Posted by McSwanky
To a point. There's a lot of right wingers support this. Crispan Blunt for example. Penny Mordaunt too. But it is a right wing opportunity to exploit elitist politicians ignoring those with differing views. Apparently Iran is supportive of transition as it gives a route out for gays, who are detested. So strange bedfellows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
You asked me a here and now question, and I gave you a here and now answer, which you don't seem to be disagreeing with.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
You're now asking me a different, hypothetical question on self-certification in a world where the GRR became law. In response, I'd support that legislation, as many transgender people presently struggle to have their gender legally recognised. They are a small, vulnerable group of people who are regularly discriminated against.
Self-certification of gender has been in operation in Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Malta, Luxembourg, etc, etc and it appears to be operating effectively. Why would it be any different in Scotland?
So today you don't believe a man is a woman if they say they are, but if the law changed tomorrow and the GRA was enacted you would believe a man is a woman because they said they are? Is that a fair summary of your position?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes
https://twitter.com/IndiaWilloughby/...20127270465537Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
:aok:
Good on her.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
This India Willoughby? https://www.womanandhome.com/life/ne...mments-371025/Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Try and stay on the subject matter or you might find our posts deleted. :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
When asked her opinion on the situation, India exclaimed, "Thank God for Nigel Farage! I’ll say it. The fact the French are escorting them over is awful. We’ve got Brexit and we’re leaving the EU."Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
What's this got to do with the thread subject?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
How me?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes
sunak and starmer are both ****. I’ve only ever voted for SNP and voted yes in 2014.
The last few years have opened my eyes and I don’t really support any political party.
All useless self obsessed *****.
We were talking about India Willoughby a trans woman who was on QT last night. You even posted one of her tweets. Happy to move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Don't you think it's material highlight views of someone you are bigging up?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7