The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

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.

---

My post was of her speaking about her time on QT regarding the thread issue. Nothing to do with whatever else she's been up to. If you want to post it on the Brexit thread feel free. :aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Don't you think it's material highlight views of someone you are bigging up?

---

:faf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

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."

---

Wow, it's almost like humans have a broad range of opinions.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

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?

---

Fundamentalist religious nutter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

https://twitter.com/IndiaWilloughby/...20127270465537

:aok:

---

Pleased to hear.

I thought she conducted herself admirably on QT and clearly she is a very strong person. Some of the discussion and contributions were toxic and she showed great restraint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Wow, it's almost like humans have a broad range of opinions.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

Couldn't agree more, it's dangerous to label them as bigots, homophobic, transphobic etc just because they do. Great point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Wow, it's almost like humans have a broad range of opinions.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

Or that you're prepared to defend the indefensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Fundamentalist religious nutter?

---

I've seen bigot and dinosaur too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes

Pleased to hear.

I thought she conducted herself admirably on QT and clearly she is a very strong person. Some of the discussion and contributions were toxic and she showed great restraint.

---

Someone from the QT Audience last night. Posted without comment.

AS a 29-year-old, straight man brought up on the west coast of Scotland without any transgender friends, I would never claim to be the most enlightened trans ally. However, as a member of the "woke" generation, I know the smell of bigotry.

I was among 150 audience members packed into Strathclyde University for the filming of BBC Question Time on February 2. Considering the current media storm on the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), coupled with the fact that the panel featured trans broadcaster India Willoughby and the "free-speech" journalist Ella Whelan of Spiked, there was a recognition among the audience that the subject would be one of the main talking points.

How the conversation went
The first question lasted about 10 minutes before we moved on to the inevitable subject of the GRA, transgender women and the Scottish Prison Service. Framed through the lens of "should safeguarding for women’s only spaces be reviewed?", the debate began with a measured, if predictable, response from the SNP’s Jenny Gilruth on the political machinations of the UK Government’s decision to block the legislation.

India Willoughby was then invited to respond to the question. Her articulate response featured statistics about predatory transgender people, the procedures in the Scottish prison system and the emotional impact that this debate has had on her personally. During her response, there was a notable shift in body language from Ella Whelan and many of the older men and women in the audience. Eye-rolling, smirking and audible sighs laid the foundation for what, for the next 25 minutes, became a poisonous atmosphere.

Ella Whelan followed, commencing into a nasty diatribe about biological sex and how women are the victims among all of this. This evoked a back-and-forth between the two panellists, with Whelan becoming increasingly condescending in her tone and body language, using the issue of this prisoner to suggest that trans people are "pretending they’re something they’re not".

How the audience reacted
Willoughby’s attempts to bring some reason into the debate were met with mocking shouts across the panel from Whelan and rapturous applause and hoots from a number of audience members. Bruce opened up the subject to the audience where Whelan’s supporters were represented in one particularly odious exchange between Willoughby and an older woman who had the contempt to look her directly in the eye and effectively state "you are still a man".

I couldn’t believe that this woman could morally justify such disdain to another human being, or that the panel chair simply allowed it to go unchallenged. All this happened among the continuous backing from particular gammon-coloured audience members.

In the aftermath of the filming, Willoughby referred on Twitter to the experience using the term "lynch mob" which I felt wasn’t far from the truth. In my own group chat, I could only define the atmosphere through comparison. If it had been an ethnic minority or gay person sitting in Willoughby’s chair, you would have been genuinely lost for words. I couldn’t speak, but I could certainly smell bigotry in the room.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Someone from the QT Audience last night.

AS a 29-year-old, straight man brought up on the west coast of Scotland without any transgender friends, I would never claim to be the most enlightened trans ally. However, as a member of the "woke" generation, I know the smell of bigotry.

I was among 150 audience members packed into Strathclyde University for the filming of BBC Question Time on February 2. Considering the current media storm on the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), coupled with the fact that the panel featured trans broadcaster India Willoughby and the "free-speech" journalist Ella Whelan of Spiked, there was a recognition among the audience that the subject would be one of the main talking points.

How the conversation went
The first question lasted about 10 minutes before we moved on to the inevitable subject of the GRA, transgender women and the Scottish Prison Service. Framed through the lens of "should safeguarding for women’s only spaces be reviewed?", the debate began with a measured, if predictable, response from the SNP’s Jenny Gilruth on the political machinations of the UK Government’s decision to block the legislation.

India Willoughby was then invited to respond to the question. Her articulate response featured statistics about predatory transgender people, the procedures in the Scottish prison system and the emotional impact that this debate has had on her personally. During her response, there was a notable shift in body language from Ella Whelan and many of the older men and women in the audience. Eye-rolling, smirking and audible sighs laid the foundation for what, for the next 25 minutes, became a poisonous atmosphere.

Ella Whelan followed, commencing into a nasty diatribe about biological sex and how women are the victims among all of this. This evoked a back-and-forth between the two panellists, with Whelan becoming increasingly condescending in her tone and body language, using the issue of this prisoner to suggest that trans people are "pretending they’re something they’re not".

How the audience reacted
Willoughby’s attempts to bring some reason into the debate were met with mocking shouts across the panel from Whelan and rapturous applause and hoots from a number of audience members. Bruce opened up the subject to the audience where Whelan’s supporters were represented in one particularly odious exchange between Willoughby and an older woman who had the contempt to look her directly in the eye and effectively state "you are still a man".

I couldn’t believe that this woman could morally justify such disdain to another human being, or that the panel chair simply allowed it to go unchallenged. All this happened among the continuous backing from particular gammon-coloured audience members.

In the aftermath of the filming, Willoughby referred on Twitter to the experience using the term "lynch mob" which I felt wasn’t far from the truth. In my own group chat, I could only define the atmosphere through comparison. If it had been an ethnic minority or gay person sitting in Willoughby’s chair, you would have been genuinely lost for words. I couldn’t speak, but I could certainly smell bigotry in the room.

---

Note the loaded language - the trans activist 'articulate' the woman - 'nasty'. Says it all really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Note the loaded language - the trans activist 'articulate' the woman - 'nasty'. Says it all really.

---

Possibly what the guy felt at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Couldn't agree more, it's dangerous to label them as bigots, homophobic, transphobic etc just because they do. Great point.

---

I'll point out here that I haven't called anybody on here any of those things on this issue.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Or that you're prepared to defend the indefensible.

---

Sorry, man . You've lost me there.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I've seen bigot and dinosaur too

---

🤚 - I said I had received messages (from friends) informing me that there was someone offering comments befitting of those words, on QT last night. It certainly wasn’t for someone simply “asking questions”.

Be interested to know why that is an issue for you, if it is that post you refer to?

I’d hate to think you were making out that those debating with you are calling you or anyone else on here certain terms by plucking various words used in different posts, completely out of context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Possibly what the guy felt at the time.

---

If you were in the audience last night and someone asked you the question about is the rapist a man or a woman and you gave the same answer that you are not sure as you need more information like medical evidence or are they taking hormones etc that would be considered a transphobic response as you are questioning the gender of someone who identifies as a woman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

🤚 - I said I had received messages (from friends) informing me that there was someone offering comments befitting of those words, on QT last night. It certainly wasn’t for someone simply “asking questions”.

Be interested to know why that is an issue for you, if it is that post you refer to?

I’d hate to think you were making out that those debating with you are calling you or anyone else on here certain terms by plucking various words used in different posts, completely out of context.

---

I'm not taking it personally. There's been a lot of these type of comments over the last few days. I'd prefer people engaged with the issues rather than the name calling, but there you go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

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.

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.

---

Which panel members were the token shouty, bigoted dinosaurs? The focus of the argument was the absurdity of the SNP panel member being unable to answer whether Bryson is a man or a woman, with the new 'gender' of 'rapist' invented by Sturgeon earlier in the day being parroted. Just nuts - and calling it out as such is not bigoted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

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?

---

My views are based on legal fact. If the law changed to allow gender self-certification, my view on that person's gender could change.

Is that ok with you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes

My views are based on legal fact. If the law changed to allow gender self-certification, my view on that person's gender could change.

Is that ok with you?

---

That's ok with me. I do find it slightly confusing you can support one position on say a Monday that requires medical diagnosis and the taking of hormones etc but on the Tuesday you can completely oppose the position you had on Monday and champion the the very removal of the things you needed to make your decision the very day before, now you seemingly don't need all that evidence that was important only the day before.

And as a SNP supporter you would also be breaking their own code of conduct by questioning the gender of someone that says they are a woman and asking for evidence etc.

It is tying people in knots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

What's this got to do with the thread subject?

---

Uh huh, because nobody on here ever digs up something unrelated to a thread to undermine a comment they don't agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Uh huh, because nobody on here ever digs up something unrelated to a thread to undermine a comment they don't agree with.

---

Just trying to keep this thread on track. Is that ok with you? Otherwise we'll come on here later and find most of the posts removed. James has agreed to move on. :aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

That's ok with me. I do find it slightly confusing you can support one position on say a Monday that requires medical diagnosis and the taking of hormones etc but on the Tuesday you can completely oppose the position you had on Monday and champion the the very removal of the things you needed to make your decision the very day before, now you seemingly don't need all that evidence that was important only the day before.

And as a SNP supporter you would also be breaking their own code of conduct by questioning the gender of someone that says they are a woman and asking for evidence etc.

It is tying people in knots.

---

Think you're confusing me with another poster. Haven't referred anywhere to medical diagnosis, hormones etc.

Whatever your own view is on the GRR Bill, you are constantly trying to weaponise it, with an incoherent constant anti SNP rant.

It is a Holyrood piece of legislation, with significant cross party support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I'm not taking it personally. There's been a lot of these type of comments over the last few days. I'd prefer people engaged with the issues rather than the name calling, but there you go.

---

I’d much rather people call-out any backward or bigoted views in politics and life. It’s much harder to progress without that.

But there you go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Which panel members were the token shouty, bigoted dinosaurs? The focus of the argument was the absurdity of the SNP panel member being unable to answer whether Bryson is a man or a woman, with the new 'gender' of 'rapist' invented by Sturgeon earlier in the day being parroted. Just nuts - and calling it out as such is not bigoted.

---

The Adam Graham AKA Isly Bryson case is not complicated, its a male double rapist trying to game the system after being charged. It's what we were told wouldn't happen with Gender Self-ID happening right in front of our eyes, a predatory male using Self ID to gain entry to a woman only space.

Jenny Gilruth speaking for the SNP tied herself in knots trying to defend gender identity politics, she knows that Gender Self-ID, and the transwomen are women mantra makes no sense, because these are the politics that allowed the double rapist to game the system and be moved after he was convicted to a female only prison.

She looked like a rabbit caught the headlights by trying to be vague and nebulous by calling the double rapist "That Individual" several times, good on Ella Whelan for asking the question is "that individual" a man or a woman, Jenny Gilruth couldn't answer, exposing the absurdity of gender identity politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODO0HpyWZMI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

The Adam Graham AKA Isly Bryson case is not complicated, its a male double rapist trying to game the system after being charged. It's what we were told wouldn't happen with Gender Self-ID happening right in front of our eyes, a predatory male using Self ID to gain entry to a woman only space.

Jenny Gilruth speaking for the SNP tied herself in knots trying to defend gender identity politics, she knows that Gender Self-ID, and the transwomen are women mantra makes no sense, because these are the politics that allowed the double rapist to game the system and be moved after he was convicted to a female only prison.

She looked like a rabbit caught the headlights by trying to be vague and nebulous by calling the double rapist "That Individual" several times, good on Ella Whelan for asking the question is "that individual" a man or a woman, Jenny Gilruth couldn't answer, exposing the absurdity of gender identity politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODO0HpyWZMI

---

The prisoner was kept in isolation at Cornton Vale.

Another attempt at political point scoring on a an apolitical subject.

If you must have a go at any political party over the affair, you'd be best focusing on the Labour Party - Scottish Labour fully supportive of the Bill and Westminster Labour for scuppering it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

I’d much rather people call-out any backward or bigoted views in politics and life. It’s much harder to progress without that.

But there you go.

---

Maybe better to explain rather than name call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes

The prisoner was kept in isolation at Corton Vale.

Another attempt at political point scoring on a an apolitical subject.

If you must have a go at any political party over the affair, you'd be best focusing on the Labour Party - Scottish Labour fully supportive of the Bill and Westminster Labour for scuppering it.

---

So it's the Labour Party to blame! Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering when someone would point the finger at Labour. Their full support of the Bill conveniently ignores the Labour amendments to protect women that were opposed by SG.

In other news....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/64514819

No mention of transgender men, though.

Finland pass Trans act.

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland...9-against.html

I wonder if Sweden or Norway will veto it. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Whether they have had surgery or hormones makes no difference. Again the SNP Code of Conduct.

"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.

---

You’ve persisted with this point in bold over a few posts now. It’s taken right from the Equality Act 2010.

Quote:

---

To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any specific treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender. This is because changing your physiological or other gender attributes is a personal process rather than a medical one.
You can be at any stage in the transition process – from proposing to reassign your gender, to undergoing a process to reassign your gender, or having completed it.

---

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...imination#what

The GRR bill/ Scottish Government did not amend or decide what a transgender person is or what is transphobic. It’s only been UK law for 12 years…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannah_hfc

You’ve persisted with this point in bold over a few posts now. It’s taken right from the Equality Act 2010.





https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...imination#what

The GRR bill/ Scottish Government did not amend or decide what a transgender person is or what is transphobic. It’s only been UK law for 12 years…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

That's all good, it just confirms my point that people asking for evidence of surgery or have they taken hormones etc are being transphobic? Is that correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

That's all good, it just confirms my point that people asking for evidence of surgery or have they taken hormones etc are being transphobic? Is that correct?

---

No - It makes a mockery of your 4 page attempt to get someone to say “yes James” so you can dance around telling them they don’t agree with the SNP/Nicola Sturgeon in particular. “Tying people in knots” indeed.

Utterly pathetic and draining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

No - It makes a mockery of your 4 page attempt to get someone to say “yes James” so you can dance around telling them they don’t agree with the SNP/Nicola Sturgeon in particular. “Tying people in knots” indeed.

Utterly pathetic and draining.

---

You are wrong of course. It highlights that if you don't 100% believe in tbe idealogy that a man is a woman if they say they are you being transphobic. I don't think people are, but if you question someones identify then that's what you are. The only reason people are questioning this person's identify is they are a double rapist, there was an amendment to stop convicted sex offenders doing this, but the SG voted it down, any reason why they did this? Seeing as you wish to defend them?

What's pathetic is the defend the SG at all costs, even when people are tying themselves in knots doing so and I suspect don't even agree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

You are wrong of course. It highlights that if you don't 100% believe in tbe idealogy that a man is a woman if they say they are you being transphobic. I don't think people are, but if you question someones identify then that's what you are. The only reason people are questioning this person's identify is they are a double rapist, there was an amendment to stop convicted sex offenders doing this, but the SG voted it down, any reason why they did this? Seeing as you wish to defend them?

What's pathetic is the defend the SG at all costs, even when people are tying themselves in knots doing so and I suspect don't even agree with it.

---

Says the man who deliberately uses he/him when referring to Bryson!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

You are wrong of course. It highlights that if you don't 100% believe in tbe idealogy that a man is a woman if they say they are you being transphobic. I don't think people are, but if you question someones identify then that's what you are. The only reason people are questioning this person's identify is they are a double rapist, there was an amendment to stop convicted sex offenders doing this, but the SG voted it down, any reason why they did this? Seeing as you wish to defend them?

What's pathetic is the defend the SG at all costs, even when people are tying themselves in knots doing so and I suspect don't even agree with it.

---

Again, you'll know more about this than me, and you'll probably slap me down for being naive, but does Gillian Martin's amendment not kind of deal with the point that you're making? Her point being that the amendment you regret to would have been thrown out by the courts?

Sent from my YAL-L21 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

You are wrong of course. It highlights that if you don't 100% believe in tbe idealogy that a man is a woman if they say they are you being transphobic. I don't think people are, but if you question someones identify then that's what you are. The only reason people are questioning this person's identify is they are a double rapist, there was an amendment to stop convicted sex offenders doing this, but the SG voted it down, any reason why they did this? Seeing as you wish to defend them?

What's pathetic is the defend the SG at all costs, even when people are tying themselves in knots doing so and I suspect don't even agree with it.

---

Where about in my post have I defended anyone? As it happens I don’t have overly strong feelings on Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP either way. They get my vote just now as an independence supporter and I happen to believe she is miles ahead of any of her equivalents right now.

But neither my feelings on NS or her party, or your concerning obsession with both, should be particularly relevant here.

But we all know it’s the sole reason for your ever presence on this thread, or almost any other one on this board for hibs supporters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McSwanky

Again, you'll know more about this than me, and you'll probably slap me down for being naive, but does Gillian Martin's amendment not kind of deal with the point that you're making? Her point being that the amendment you regret to would have been thrown out by the courts?

Sent from my YAL-L21 using Tapatalk

---

That is the reason it was rejected. AIUI, the amendment would have fallen foul of the ECHR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Where about in my post have I defended anyone? As it happens I don’t have overly strong feelings on Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP either way. They get my vote just now as an independence supporter and I happen to believe she is miles ahead of any of her equivalents right now.

But neither my feelings on NS or her party, or your concerning obsession with both, should be particularly relevant here.

But we all know it’s the sole reason for your ever presence on this thread, or almost any other one on this board for hibs supporters.

---

You like many others defend pretty much everything the SG do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Says the man who deliberately uses he/him when referring to Bryson!!

---

That's the correct terminology in his case. Even Sturgeon was forced to concede he's faking his trans status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Says the man who deliberately uses he/him when referring to Bryson!!

---

Oh who will think of the feelings of the poor rapist?

You have never answered the question a few people asked, what's a legitimate trans woman? You used that phrase so what does it mean? How do you know under self ID if someone is legitimate or not?

Is Bryson a legitimate trans woman?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Oh who will think of the feelings of the poor rapist?

You have never answered the question a few people asked, what's a legitimate trans woman? You used that phrase so what does it mean? How do you know under self ID if someone is legitimate or not?

Is Bryson a legitimate trans woman?

---

You keep using his/her chosen female name so you must think so?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

You keep using his/her chosen female name so you must think so?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

No, I think they are faking it. What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

No, I think they are faking it. What do you think?

---

I have no idea what so ever and more importantly for me, I don’t give a monkeys. The person is in jail now and won’t be getting out anytime soon. How he/she now spends her days is of no interest to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

You keep using his/her chosen female name so you must think so?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Nope - it’s everyone else who are tying themselves in knots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

That's all good, it just confirms my point that people asking for evidence of surgery or have they taken hormones etc are being transphobic? Is that correct?

---

You seem to be twisting things.

Two people discussing how far someone has transitioned on an internet forum is not transphobic.

Gatekeepers in services in the wider world asking them would be.

I asked yesterday how far Isla has transitioned and received information from another poster that they'd had hormone treatment but hadn't gone through the medical change.

That doesn't make anyone transphobic. Would you agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

You seem to be twisting things.

Two people discussing how far someone has transitioned on an internet forum is not transphobic.

Gatekeepers in services in the wider world asking them would be.

I asked yesterday how far Isla has transitioned and received information from another poster that they'd had hormone treatment but hadn't gone through the medical change.

That doesn't make anyone transphobic. Would you agree?

---

Well it does according to this:

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"

Sorry you don't like it, the idealogy is if someone says they are a woman they are a woman, that's the whole point of self ID, if that isn't the point of self ID what is....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Well it does according to this:

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"

Sorry you don't like it, the idealogy is if someone says they are a woman they are a woman, that's the whole point of self ID, if that isn't the point of self ID what is....

---

You're mixing it up again.

I'm not asking about the ideology, and I'm not asking about self ID.

I'm asking if you agree that if someone asks a question regarding someone's status on an internet forum, it's not transphobic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

You're mixing it up again.

I'm not asking about the ideology, and I'm not asking about self ID.

I'm asking if you agree that if someone asks a question regarding someone's status on an internet forum, it's not transphobic?

---

Well it is according to the definitions.

You made comparisons to the way gay people were treated, would you ask a gay man how far down the road he was in his journey to being gay he was? Would you want details on if he has had any gay experiences to confirm he was gay? Course you wouldn't, you would accept he is gay.

You either support self ID which is you believe if a man says he is a woman he is, or you don't.

You are needing answers before you can make a decision, so you are questioning his identify as you suspect he might be lying. Unfortunately if you question the legitimacy of his trans status you are meeting this criteria.

"using phrases or language to suggest [someone’s] gender identity is not valid"

You want the information to make a judgment about the validity of his status?

We will just need to agree to disagree on this and give everyone a rest!

Have a great day. 👍

Sorry R7 I want to make it clear I don't think you are transphobic, I am using the example to paint how this self ID idealogy can tie people in knots when it crashes into the real world.

I suspect we both want something that meets the majority needs off everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Sorry R7 I want to make it clear I don't think you are transphobic, I am using the example to paint how this self ID idealogy can tie people in knots when it crashes into the real world.

I suspect we both want something that meets the majority needs off everyone.

---

From being accused of "bigging up" India Willoughby one day(not you), to being given the all clear on my transphobic questioning the next.

Only on Hibs.net

😂

Have a good day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

From being accused of "bigging up" India Willoughby one day(not you), to being given the all clear on my transphobic questioning the next.

Only on Hibs.net

😂

Have a good day.

---

You see that's what working constructively together does...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

You see that's what working constructively together does...

---

I'll leave you and James to get a room. 👍

It's just a thought but did Nicola Sturgeon not appear on QT because she knew that Ella Whelan was going to question the logic of gender identity politics? Jenny Gilruth who stood in for her was tied in knots, the audience could see this and began groaning when she tried to evade Ella Whelan's question, and were cheering Ella Whelan on, for this to happen at the Kelvin Hall shows that gender identity politics just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

It's just a thought but did Nicola Sturgeon not appear on QT because she knew that Ella Whelan was going to question the logic of gender identity politics? Jenny Gilruth who stood in for her was tied in knots, the audience could see this and began groaning when she tried to evade Ella Whelan's question, and were cheering Ella Whelan on, for this to happen at the Kelvin Hall shows that gender identity politics just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

---

I watched QT on iplayer this morning and I don't think anyone came out of the debate, and particularly that exchange, looking great.

Whelan came across as a bit of a bully and very much old school in her opinions on sex and sexuality. Gilruth was evasive and either couldn't or wouldn't answer the question asked. I suppose 'what is a woman?' has become a fully loaded question now though and one regularly used by both sides in the debate to further their own agenda and attempt to discredit and/or embarrass the person they are asking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

It's just a thought but did Nicola Sturgeon not appear on QT because she knew that Ella Whelan was going to question the logic of gender identity politics? Jenny Gilruth who stood in for her was tied in knots, the audience could see this and began groaning when she tried to evade Ella Whelan's question, and were cheering Ella Whelan on, for this to happen at the Kelvin Hall shows that gender identity politics just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

---

Don’t think the FM ever does Question time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Don’t think the FM ever does Question time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Exactly. Last time a sitting PM was on it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glory Lurker

Exactly. Last time a sitting PM was on it?

---

She's not a PM.

If anybody is in Glasgow today.



https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/01/...baret-furries/



George Square 11am

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

If anybody is in Glasgow today.



https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/01/...baret-furries/



George Square 11am

---

Have you worked out what a legitimate trans woman is yet? It's a term you used.

If the GRA became law how would you know who is legitimate and not legitimate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crunchie

She's not a PM.

---

Thanks for pointing that out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

If anybody is in Glasgow today.



https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/01/...baret-furries/



George Square 11am

---

What are 'furries'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I watched QT on iplayer this morning and I don't think anyone came out of the debate, and particularly that exchange, looking great.

Whelan came across as a bit of a bully and very much old school in her opinions on sex and sexuality. Gilruth was evasive and either couldn't or wouldn't answer the question asked. I suppose 'what is a woman?' has become a fully loaded question now though and one regularly used by both sides in the debate to further their own agenda and attempt to discredit and/or embarrass the person they are asking.

---

Is it really 'old school' to point out biological fact?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

What are 'furries'?

---

People that identify as animals I think.

But I see that article links to a trans woman called Beth who seems to be quite an influencer for the recent trans rights but can only be described as an extremist. (Photos of her holding knives etc) She is close to Maggie Chapman (what a surprise) and stood for the Greens. Some of the history of Beth makes for some disturbing reading so I won't link to it. I will repeat what I have said before this is in the main being driven by extremists who have captured the Government. We see the results in the recent polls.

I wonder if the SNP will have second thoughts about challenging the S35, surely the sensible thing to do now is admit it went wrong and everyone needs to come together and work out a compromise.

Joanna Cherry

"It’s time to admit that feminist criticisms of self-ID & the #GRRBill were right, eat some humble pie & sort this mess out before it does any more damage to the reputation of our party, parliament & the cause of Scotland’s independence"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I watched QT on iplayer this morning and I don't think anyone came out of the debate, and particularly that exchange, looking great.

Whelan came across as a bit of a bully and very much old school in her opinions on sex and sexuality. Gilruth was evasive and either couldn't or wouldn't answer the question asked. I suppose 'what is a woman?' has become a fully loaded question now though and one regularly used by both sides in the debate to further their own agenda and attempt to discredit and/or embarrass the person they are asking.

---

:agree: Just got back from a week in Austria and watched it about an hour ago. Can't help feeling she sounded like someone arguing the sun rotated around the earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

:agree: Just got back from a week in Austria and watched it about an hour ago. Can't help feeling she sounded like someone arguing the sun rotated around the earth.

---

Wheelan or Gilruth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skol

Wheelan or Gilruth?

---

Whelan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Whelan

---

For stating the obvious (that Bryson isn't a woman)?

https://womansplaceuk.org/2022/06/22...-posie-parker/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

For stating the obvious (that Bryson isn't a woman)?

---

No, for her prehistoric opinions on biological sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

No, for her prehistoric opinions on biological sex.

---

I guess we'll never know what prehistoric opinions were on biological sex. If Whelan had been questioning gender identity (entirely different) she might have deserved some criticism but she didn't. The biological reality of men and women is long established. You can be a trans-woman or a trans-man, but you will always be biologically female or male.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

I guess we'll never know what prehistoric opinions were on biological sex. If Whelan had been questioning gender identity (entirely different) she might have deserved some criticism but she didn't. The biological reality of men and women is long established. You can be a trans-woman or a trans-man, but you will always be biologically female or male.

---

Like I said, it reminds me of those set in the belief that the sun rotates around the earth or that the earth is flat. Modern science has proven that sex is not binary, instead it's a spectrum that recognises that x and y chromosomes are not the be all and end all of determining biological sex. It'll take a while for the dinosaurs to become extinct, but their days are definitely numbered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

I guess we'll never know what prehistoric opinions were on biological sex. If Whelan had been questioning gender identity (entirely different) she might have deserved some criticism but she didn't. The biological reality of men and women is long established. You can be a trans-woman or a trans-man, but you will always be biologically female or male.

---

So you don't recognise the concept of intersex?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Like I said, it reminds me of those set in the belief that the sun rotates around the earth or that the earth is flat. Modern science has proven that sex is not binary, instead it's a spectrum that recognises that x and y chromosomes are not the be all and end all of determining biological sex. It'll take a while for the dinosaurs to become extinct, but their days are definitely numbered.

---

No trans-person can change their biological sex. It's hardly flat earth talk to acknowledge that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

I guess we'll never know what prehistoric opinions were on biological sex. If Whelan had been questioning gender identity (entirely different) she might have deserved some criticism but she didn't. The biological reality of men and women is long established. You can be a trans-woman or a trans-man, but you will always be biologically female or male.

---

Here is Ella Whelan chair of a discussion on How we talk to kids about gender, the panel includes two trans people Debbie Hayton and Katy Jon Went. It is very informative especially when debates like this don't happen very often, Debbie Hayton makes a great point on how irresponsible it is to tell kids they can change their sex at a young age.

https://worldwrite.org.uk/video/girl...s-abot-gender/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

So you don't recognise the concept of intersex?

---

Yes of course I do but somebody being born with atypical genitalia bears no relation to claims that trans-women are women in every sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Yes of course I do but somebody being born with atypical genitalia bears no relation to claims that trans-women are women in every sense.

---

OK. That doesn't seem to correspond with your statement that one is "always biologically male or female".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

No trans-person can change their biological sex. It's hardly flat earth talk to acknowledge that.

---

They're not changing sex, they're just correcting the label they we're incorrectly given in most cases. The term "sex change" is probably misleading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Have you worked out what a legitimate trans woman is yet? It's a term you used.

If the GRA became law how would you know who is legitimate and not legitimate?

---

Surely you are eventually going to run out of ways to ask the same question over and over again.:greengrin

This legislation will be UK wide sooner then you probably think and people will not be tying themselves in knots trying to define anything, as always it will be what a reasonable person thinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

Surely you are eventually going to run out of ways to ask the same question over and over again.:greengrin

This legislation will be UK wide sooner then you probably think and people will not be tying themselves in knots trying to define anything, as always it will be what a reasonable person thinks.

---

If only I could get an answer. The thing is if anyone answers it ties them in knots like Jenny Gilruth on QT.

I think Keir Starmer would be a fool to ignore what's happening in Scotland and whatever is done in Westminster will not look the same as what is up here, for example he has already said 16/17 yr olds is to young. He will look and learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

If only I could get an answer. The thing is if anyone answers it ties them in knots like Jenny Gilruth on QT.

I think Keir Starmer would be a fool to ignore what's happening in Scotland and whatever is done in Westminster will not look the same as what is up here, for example he has already said 16/17 yr olds is to young. He will look and learn.

---

You just got one :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

What are 'furries'?

---

The Furries are inadequate male tossers who hide their identity behind a costume and go looking for fights with women every time they gather to campaign for their sex based rights.

For some awkward people, being a furry is simply a way to socialize without the weight of normal rules, a retreat from reality. However, the fact that this escapism takes such an outwardly child-friendly form is a bit of a red flag.

Surely, even the google-eyed gender loons in the SNP must have enough nous to see that adult men who get a kick from dressing up as animals are not the ideal spokespeople for their self-ID bill.

I think they were targeting women at the Let women speak rally in Glasgow today, if the battle for women is 'I'm a women hear me roar' the opposing chant must surely be 'I am Colin in a cartoon animal head, hear me whine through this small air vent', It should be pretty obvious to everyone which side is right here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

OK. That doesn't seem to correspond with your statement that one is "always biologically male or female".

---

Yeh, fair enough. Intersex is an outlier in that sense I guess but is still measured biologically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

The Furries are inadequate male tossers who hide their identity behind a costume and go looking for fights with women every time they gather to campaign for their sex based rights.

---

Do you have the sources and statistics to back that claim up? It's somewhat disturbing that anyone wearing an animal costume has you riled up so much. I hope you never visit Disneyland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Do you have the sources and statistics to back that claim up? It's somewhat disturbing that anyone wearing an animal costume has you riled up so much. I hope you never visit Disneyland.

---

Or seen the tens of thousands of bears in ibrox.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

The Furries are inadequate male tossers who hide their identity behind a costume and go looking for fights with women every time they gather to campaign for their sex based rights.

For some awkward people, being a furry is simply a way to socialize without the weight of normal rules, a retreat from reality. However, the fact that this escapism takes such an outwardly child-friendly form is a bit of a red flag.

Surely, even the google-eyed gender loons in the SNP must have enough nous to see that adult men who get a kick from dressing up as animals are not the ideal spokespeople for their self-ID bill.

I think they were targeting women at the Let women speak rally in Glasgow today, if the battle for women is 'I'm a women hear me roar' the opposing chant must surely be 'I am Colin in a cartoon animal head, hear me whine through this small air vent', It should be pretty obvious to everyone which side is right here.

---

Nae Panto for your bairns at Christmas then. 😂

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Do you have the sources and statistics to back that claim up? It's somewhat disturbing that anyone wearing an animal costume has you riled up so much. I hope you never visit Disneyland.

---

Or watch the masked singer 😂

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

The Furries are inadequate male tossers who hide their identity behind a costume and go looking for fights with women every time they gather to campaign for their sex based rights.

For some awkward people, being a furry is simply a way to socialize without the weight of normal rules, a retreat from reality. However, the fact that this escapism takes such an outwardly child-friendly form is a bit of a red flag.

Surely, even the google-eyed gender loons in the SNP must have enough nous to see that adult men who get a kick from dressing up as animals are not the ideal spokespeople for their self-ID bill.

I think they were targeting women at the Let women speak rally in Glasgow today, if the battle for women is 'I'm a women hear me roar' the opposing chant must surely be 'I am Colin in a cartoon animal head, hear me whine through this small air vent', It should be pretty obvious to everyone which side is right here.

---

For your information they were kept apart, the anti trans group outside the wetherspoons and the pro trans in front of the city Chambers. Oh aye and Manky Jaiket was with the right wing anti trans group!!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/n...yson-77g8zzbll

How 'Isla' has done more harm to Sturgeon than any political rival.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/n...yson-77g8zzbll

How 'Isla' has done more harm to Sturgeon than any political rival.

---

You lot have strange champions.[emoji2961]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

You lot have strange champions.[emoji2961]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Yep that's the main take from the story.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...nister-4014755

Somerville follows Smyth in calling for SNP rebels to consider their future in the party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

For your information they were kept apart, the anti trans group outside the wetherspoons and the pro trans in front of the city Chambers. Oh aye and Manky Jaiket was with the right wing anti trans group!!

---

Andy Ngo was with the anti-trans group as well. Big friend of the Proud Boys

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Yep that's the main take from the story.

---

I think the women won't wheesht group need to be aware who are attaching themselves to the rallies they're having.

Manky Jaiket (A force for good)
Andy Ngo
National Housing Party
Scottish Family Party
Max Dunbar, formerly of the BNP

Strange bedfellows indeed.

I know some women who called out Dunbar, but they really need to watch out who's turning up on their side of the argument.

https://twitter.com/EuanYours/status...42116629250048

https://www.heraldscotland.com/polit...ics-respected/

Flynn takes the opposite view to Sturgeon ally Somerville.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

https://www.heraldscotland.com/polit...ics-respected/

Flynn takes the opposite view to Sturgeon ally Somerville.

---

The FM has just had a discussion about this at Bute house, and said their would be many different views on individual issues. Do you have a difficulty with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

The FM has just had a discussion about this at Bute house, and said their would be many different views on individual issues. Do you have a difficulty with that?

---

Why would I have 'difficulty' with it? It's the SNP who are having all sorts of self-inflicted difficulties with this particular issue.

Not sure if this should have been on the BBC bias thread but it covers this one as well. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, but they do need a story eh. :wink:

Massive so it is. :wink:

https://twitter.com/BronzeBullyTime/...19487532802050

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Why would I have 'difficulty' with it? It's the SNP who are having all sorts of self-inflicted difficulties with this particular issue.

---

Politicians with different views. How very strange for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

I think the women won't wheesht group need to be aware who are attaching themselves to the rallies they're having.

Manky Jaiket (A force for good)
Andy Ngo
National Housing Party
Scottish Family Party
Max Dunbar, formerly of the BNP

Strange bedfellows indeed.

I know some women who called out Dunbar, but they really need to watch out who's turning up on their side of the argument.

https://twitter.com/EuanYours/status...42116629250048

---

A Holocaust denier, anti-abortionists, anti-feminists and fascists at a rally for women's rights. I guess the organisers were just unlucky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Politicians with different views. How very strange for you.

---

I get that your devotion to the SNP compels you to downplay each and every hint of discord, but this is an issue which has split the party like no other and has understandably sparked widespread media coverage for months now. I'm not surprised they're desperate to put a lid on it.

From my point of view, I'd be strongly opposed to this ill-concieved bill whichever party had brought it to life and I hope common sense will prevail in terms of a rethink. However, if the furore around it means an ongoing feud within the SNP then that's a welcome bonus.