The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

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.

---

It's not meant to imply that at all. I'm well aware of the intersection of politicians and charities, having worked with many over the years.

I'm railing against the social-media assumption that "they must be corrupt", with no evidence (so far) other than people's agendas. I do find it strange, though, that the stances of these 6 organisations have been in the public domain for a few years now, yet it's only now that the **** is flying. (But that is social media for you, of course :greengrin)

Like I say, if they have done what they are being accused of, they deserve everything that comes their way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

All it needs is one pissed-off former employee :cb

---

That doesn't make sense to the example I gave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It's not meant to imply that at all. I'm well aware of the intersection of politicians and charities, having worked with many over the years.

I'm railing against the social-media assumption that "they must be corrupt", with no evidence (so far) other than people's agendas. I do find it strange, though, that the stances of these 6 organisations have been in the public domain for a few years now, yet it's only now that the **** is flying.

Like I say, if they have done what they are being accused of, they deserve everything that comes their way.

---

The social media opinion isn't that they are corrupt. It that 3 of the named are very much the extreme end of the discussion and the opposite of the feminists stance. They employed a trans female to head Edinburgh rape crisis and then supported her abhorrent comments on re educating rape victims

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It's not meant to imply that at all. I'm well aware of the intersection of politicians and charities, having worked with many over the years.

I'm railing against the social-media assumption that "they must be corrupt", with no evidence (so far) other than people's agendas. I do find it strange, though, that the stances of these 6 organisations have been in the public domain for a few years now, yet it's only now that the **** is flying. (But that is social media for you, of course :greengrin)

Like I say, if they have done what they are being accused of, they deserve everything that comes their way.

---

I actually don't think there is corruption. But I don't think there needs to be either. The alignment between the Government and these organisations isn't just money. It's a widely shared value base, which includes trans issues. Unfortunately it's an issue where it is very difficult to challenge. I hate to jump into anecdote but I have been told by two women in the sector recently that they would not dare raise concerns about the issue at work.That can't be right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

The social media opinion isn't that they are corrupt. It that 3 of the named are very much the extreme end of the discussion and the opposite of the feminists stance. They employed a trans female to head Edinburgh rape crisis and then supported her abhorrent comments on re educating rape victims

---

Just catching up on this now and you're dead tight. Hardly a surprise they are backing the bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

The social media opinion isn't that they are corrupt. It that 3 of the named are very much the extreme end of the discussion and the opposite of the feminists stance. They employed a trans female to head Edinburgh rape crisis and then supported her abhorrent comments on re educating rape victims

---

Feminists stance? So you can't be a feminist and support the GRA? :hmmm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Just catching up on this now and you're dead tight. Hardly a surprise they are backing the bill.

---

So women's voices are only worth listening to when they agree with your point of view?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Grieves

Feminists stance? So you can't be a feminist and support the GRA? :hmmm:

---

I'm sure you could be, but I was talking about organisations. I've yet to see one (and I've seen a dozen) come out in support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Grieves

So women's voices are only worth listening to when they agree with your point of view?

---

That's not what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

I'm sure you could be, but I was talking about organisations. I've yet to see one (and I've seen a dozen) come out in support.

---

I've perhaps misunderstood you here. Are you saying that Engender and SWA, for example, aren't feminist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I've perhaps misunderstood you here. Are you saying that Engender and SWA, for example, aren't feminist?

---

No I said I hadn't seen any. But both above are on one side of the debate after reading their opinion. They push that a trans women is literally a woman, supporting them can be feminism too. The other side says that is nonsense and not feminism, trans women aren't women and biological females are being silenced.

It's up to them to argue if one side is true feminism. One thing, the establishment is pushing the former as being correct and the later opinion anti trans which is obviously ridiculous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

No I said I hadn't seen any. But both above are on one side of the debate after reading their opinion. They push that a trans women is literally a woman, supporting them can be feminism too. The other side says that is nonsense and not feminism, trans women aren't women and biological females are being silenced.

It's up to them to argue if one side is true feminism. One thing, the establishment is pushing the former as being correct and the later opinion anti trans which is obviously ridiculous

---

OK thanks 😊. I can breathe again... I thought for a minute that there was going to be a debate on what a feminist is 😀

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

OK thanks 😊. I can breathe again... I thought for a minute that there was going to be a debate on what a feminist is 😀

---

I wouldn't even step into it as I'm too ill-informed. If feminist groups like above want to support trans females I'd personally think it's good. I'm sure per capita trans people need more support and face more discrimination than any.

I agree with 99% of GRA and hope a sensible solution can be found for the rest. It needs to come from everyone listening to each others opinions though and I don't think that is happening

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

OK thanks 😊. I can breathe again... I thought for a minute that there was going to be a debate on what a feminist is 😀

---

Thank god for that!

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org...balancing-act/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

That's not what I said.

---

It was a question. There's folk on here who were going on about men listening to women but as soon as there's women saying something they don't agree with the smears started.

I'm not an expert on trans or women's rights so it's important for me to hear the opinions of organisations representing these groups who are more likely to have a broader experience of trans/women's opinion than a few people going mental in a social media echo chamber. Just a thought likes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Grieves

It was a question. There's folk on here who were going on about men listening to women but as soon as there's women saying something they don't agree with the smears started.

I'm not an expert on trans or women's rights so it's important for me to hear the opinions of organisations representing these groups who are more likely to have a broader experience of trans/women's opinion than a few people going mental in a social media echo chamber. Just a thought likes.

---

The group of charities listed above are the extreme in the debate. Very much trans women are women period. It was 3 of them that were embroiled in the controversy of a trans woman being given head gig in rape crisis, then supporting her controversial views.

I'd say the vast majority are somewhere in the middle between them and radical feminist groups

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org...balancing-act/

---

That's a shocking read, it's a stich up. Women will wheesht

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Grieves

It was a question. There's folk on here who were going on about men listening to women but as soon as there's women saying something they don't agree with the smears started.

I'm not an expert on trans or women's rights so it's important for me to hear the opinions of organisations representing these groups who are more likely to have a broader experience of trans/women's opinion than a few people going mental in a social media echo chamber. Just a thought likes.

---

In that case my answer to the question is no, of course not. Everyone is entitled to their own view. I was simply agreeing that several of those organisations are unlikely to provide anything like a balanced viewpoint.

If you have time to read through the thread you'll find there are some very well informed opinions being offered on this issue. Working in children's education, I have acquired a significant amount of knowledge about what's at stake and am strongly of the view that this bill is bad law and should, at the very least, be paused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

That's a shocking read, it's a stich up. Women will wheesht

---

Jeez, stich-up indeed.

https://twitter.com/ChtyCommission/s...K5Efkv9HA&s=19

I am sure the Scottish Government have used Mermaids and met with them about consulting on and influencing the GRA.

It feels like the GRA should be paused rather than rushing it through later this month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

https://twitter.com/ChtyCommission/s...K5Efkv9HA&s=19

I am sure the Scottish Government have used Mermaids and met with them about consulting on and influencing the GRA.

It feels like the GRA should be paused rather than rushing it through later this month.

---

Such an investigation is long overdue IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Such an investigation is long overdue IMHO.

---

Maybe why the CEO departed abruptly last week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Maybe why the CEO departed abruptly last week.

---

The Mermaids saga is murky, and seems to revolve around safeguarding and controversial appointments. Much of it, of course, is being played out on social media, which is never the most reliable of sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

https://twitter.com/ChtyCommission/s...K5Efkv9HA&s=19

I am sure the Scottish Government have used Mermaids and met with them about consulting on and influencing the GRA.

It feels like the GRA should be paused rather than rushing it through later this month.

---

SG did indeed consult Mermaids, along with hundreds of other interested parties, in the longest and most widespread consultation process in its history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

SG did indeed consult Mermaids, along with hundreds of other interested parties, in the longest and most widespread consultation process in its history.

---

Ok thanks for confirming I was correct as I wasn't sure.

The Committee received 10,800 short form submissions and 800 long form ones. This appears to be five times more than any previous Scottish Parliament Bill call for evidence. A summary analysis of the short form ones was published on 23 May. Of these responses, 38% supported ‘the purpose of the Bill’, 59% did not and 3% had no view. For the proposal to make GRCs available without a diagnosis, the figures are only shown in an unlabelled graphic, but it appears around 34% supported self-declaration, 64% did not and 2% offered no view. A summary of the long form responses does not yet appear to be publicly available.

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org...balancing-act/

The selection process for the consultations, seems pretty loaded in favour of proponents of the bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

The Committee received 10,800 short form submissions and 800 long form ones. This appears to be five times more than any previous Scottish Parliament Bill call for evidence. A summary analysis of the short form ones was published on 23 May. Of these responses, 38% supported ‘the purpose of the Bill’, 59% did not and 3% had no view. For the proposal to make GRCs available without a diagnosis, the figures are only shown in an unlabelled graphic, but it appears around 34% supported self-declaration, 64% did not and 2% offered no view. A summary of the long form responses does not yet appear to be publicly available.

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org...balancing-act/

The selection process for the consultations, seems pretty loaded in favour of proponents of the bill.

---

https://www.gov.scot/publications/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-analysis-responses-public-consultation-exercise/

In total 17,058 responses were available for analysis. Most responses (16,843 of those available for analysis) were submitted by individual members of the public, with the remaining 215 submitted by organisations.

Those resident in Scotland accounted for 55% of respondents, with 32% resident in the rest of the UK and the remaining 14% resident in the rest of the world.

The consultation process is about more than just the numbers.

The body that administers it (who, AIUI, are civil servants rather than political appointments) have to take into account the amount of cut-and-pasting that goes on. For example, an organisation might might say to its 100 members "this is what we're saying to the consultation. Please say the same". Or organisations might get together and say "let's make sure we all say the same". In those situations, it's only really one argument that is being put forward, irrespective of the numbers.

The SG unit is well aware of this, and has to make sure that the breadth of opinion is reflected when taking things to the next stage. Of course the numbers are important, but it's the different shades within those numbers that, IMO, is more important.

The bulk of the opposition to this bill has been focused on the threat it poses to women's safety, which is entirely understandable. I do feel, though, that of major concern is that it would enable children as young as 16 to change their legal sex. In the light of the Charity Commission investigation into Mermaids (whose approach to gender dysphoria has led to the NHS putting children on the path to irreversible medical treatment), I feel this needs urgent reassessment.

Unlike the NHS in England, who have taken on board Hilary Cass's findings that gender dysphoria in children is transient (in contrast to the Mermaids dogma that it is an indicator of a fixed trans identity), Sturgeon remains blinkered to such advice, seemingly believing that it doesn't apply to children in Scotland and is paving the way for inappropriate social transition with no clinical input whatsoever.