I guess it went to HMG as the member state. I assume they will pass to SG with some glee.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Printable View
I guess it went to HMG as the member state. I assume they will pass to SG with some glee.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
They'll also photocopy bits of it, since it's their turn next:)Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
On your evidence point I suspect it's too early to have proper peer reviewed research.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
An interested take on the level of unthinking in Gender Self ID suggesting it's all about virtue signaling
https://www.spiked-online.com/video/...trans-crusade/
Fair point.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I have another question, not necessarily aimed at you, but for those who seem to be all over the Bill.
Is there provision for review after a set period of time? IMO , the best practice in societal-change issues such as this is to have that. That way, any unintended consequences can be assessed and the legislation changed, if appropriate.
Interesting point re review. That doesn't, in itself, mean that issues arising would be addressed. Another approach would be to put a 'sunset clause' in the legislation. I suspect that would be very unpopular with proponents of the legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
As it turns out, a review has been recommended.... just yesterday. They must have read this page :)Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
https://www.scottishtrans.org/final-amendments-on-gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-at-stage-two/
A smart move IMO.
It's certainly a politically smart move.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Ash Regan's column for the Times yesterday:
A few weeks ago I found myself in a strange predicament. Despite being a loyal minister of many years standing, my conscience would not allow me to vote with the government on gender reform. Yesterday the Gender Recognition Reform Bill passed its second stage of scrutiny virtually unamended in any substantive way.
I am not against reform in this area but any reforms must protect the rights of everyone. In my view the key areas of concern are the implications for children’s health, women’s rights and safeguarding.
Children considering transitioning often need mental health support, and a “wait and see” approach can work well. Social transition can too easily lead to a medicalised pathway — of untested puberty blockers, sex hormones and even surgery, all of which come with physical health risks, loss of sexual function and even sterility. As a society we do not let children make choices with such far-reaching consequences.
Amendments that could have prevented those on the sex offenders register from obtaining a gender recognition certificate (GRC) and strengthened the law on single sex prison allocation were voted down or withdrawn. Many public institutions in Scotland are already operating a de facto self-ID policy which is questionable as this is prior to the law being changed.
A recent example is Katie Dolatowski, a trans-identified male and convicted sex offender who is in prison for physical assault and has just been moved from Polmont (where Dolatowski had assaulted a male inmate) to Cornton Vale Prison, which is part of Scotland’s female prison estate. Questions are rightly being asked about the risk posed to female prisoners and staff.
We have single-sex prisons for a reason. The law should support the Scottish Prison Service to hold prisoners according to the risk they present, no matter how they identify. Violent sex offenders have no place in the women’s estate.
Women’s single-sex spaces for privacy, safety or therapeutic purposes are enshrined in the Equality Act 2010. These important protections will be impossible to uphold when anyone can decide they are a woman and have a GRC to prove their legal status.
If this bill is to be enacted, there needs to be clear guidance for institutions and business to ensure they operate within the law. There are so many unanswered questions. More clarity is required so that we understand the impact this change in the law will have on all of us.
Reasoned and thoughtful.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
No doubt someone somewhere will shout “bigot”
The intolerance of the moral high ground where reasoned debate is shut down. It’s like a new religion.
Here's an exceptionally well-written piece from the Guardian today which not only addresses the concerns around women's safety but also those around gender dyshphoria and social transition. It lays bare Sturgeon's tin-headed refusal to listen to reason in favour of ploughing on regardless with what has become a dangerous vanity project:Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysGot2
Sturgeon’s plans to reform gender law could leave Tories as the champions of women’s rights | Sonia Sodha | The Guardian
"Sturgeon remains blinkered: she has ignored female victims of male violence, treated the concerns of the UN special rapporteur dismissively and failed to listen to young people who received appalling care from NHS Scotland and now regret their transition. Her implausible mantra remains that no man will abuse the system, women’s rights are not affected and evidence reviewed by an English paediatrician has no relevance to Scottish children."
JK Rowling attacks Labour over support for Nicola Sturgeon's gender bill (telegraph.co.uk)
Rowling says Scottish Labour have handed Tories an 'open goal on safeguarding women'. Echoes yesterday's Guardian comment piece.
Leaked report shows almost half of female Labour Party members do not support the bill.
https://news.sky.com/story/shame-on-...forms-12758613
'Nicola Sturgeon accidentally exposed to some freedom of speech'.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/30/jk-rowling-champagne-nicola-sturgeon-heckler-alexandra-darroch/Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Apparently she has actually sent the heckler a case of wine.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...f-transphobia/
'Is Nicola Sturgeon now guilty of transphobia?'
Massie has his say.
Interesting development.
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/sco...support-gender
Amnesty Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid, Engender, Rape Crisis Scotland, JustRight Scotland, Scottish Women's Rights Centre all restating their support for the current bill.
Their letter to the UN Special Rapporteur is interesting.
Most of those organisations if not all get some or all their funding from the Scottish Government. I can imagine if they never supported it there would be consequences, funding might suddenly go elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That's quite an endorsement.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Yeah, I have seen those accusations.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
I've been involved with organisations on the end of that kind of stuff in the past, and it's not pleasant. It's a sign that the debate has moved on from the facts and evidence, and has resorted to ad hominem attacks.
What is being suggested that every one of those organisations, with their collective experience over many decades, have decided that they will go against their actual beliefs and principles through 2 public consultations, a contentious parliamentary process (including, as they say, over 150 suggested amendments), and an emotive and widespread public debate, purely to protect some of their funding. And, in all that time, no whistle-blower or disgruntled current or ex-employee has said anything.
If that's what they have done, **** them. They deserve to get blasted.
However, as I/we always said to those who would make such accusations..... Prove it.
(they never did :cb)
Amnesty is a big business mouthpiece awash with Russian influence. Its a world away from where it was decades ago. They should have been defunded after their victim blaming and worse of Ukraine
https://www.politico.eu/article/amne...ort-wrong/amp/
I doubt if that would come in to the thinking of any of those organisations.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
How are you going to prove that someone sides with where their wages comes from. Its not illegal it's natural.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
3 of those listed were the ones embroiled in controversy for employing a trans female as their Edinburgh. They defended Mridul Wadhwa the head of a rape crisis centre who said “bigoted” survivors should have their “unacceptable beliefs” challenged as part of their recoveryQuote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
The above listed are all very much on one side opposing the feminist groups
I would certainly hope so but you never know.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
"Charities across Scotland are being silenced by “gagging orders” that prevent them from criticising SNP policies or backing rival campaigns as part of contracts to receive state funding.
Two leading organisations have confirmed they face curbs on free speech under their government funding deal. Critics have said the SNP is “handcuffing charities”, but some groups have ignored the contractual obligation to refrain from engaging in party politics.
Shelter Scotland and Victim Support Scotland said that they were subject to restrictions. The Scottish government denies that contracts for grant funding prohibit charities from supporting campaigns and influencing policy. However, the terms in Victim Support Scotland’s funding letter say: “No part of the grant shall be used to fund any activity or material which is party political in intention, use, or presentation or appears to be designed to affect support for a political party."
And remember Devi Sridhar and others at the start of the pandemic saying experts feared being critical of the SNP incase they lost their funding.
I hope that doesn't come into it though.
Like I say, if that is what happened, there will be people who know, people who work for them or who have worked for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I'm not saying anything illegal or bribery. But it's surely obvious if you get funding and your job perhaps depends on it, your not subjectiveQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
We need to be careful what we are suggesting here. It's perfectly reasonable that a body receiving government funding should not use that funding for political (in its widest sense) campaigning. That's not the same as saying a body won't get funding if it is critical of the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
All it needs is one pissed-off former employee :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I think that your argument implies that there is the third sector and a separate group of politicians. The lines are, of course, much more blurred. Maggie Chapman, for example, had a prominent role in Rape Crisis Scotland which is at the heart of much of this controversy. I'm sure there are other examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod