The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Alternatively, looking after vulnerable minorities is one mark of a civilised society, even if one of those minorities includes ONLY five hundred thousand people.

---

Looking after trans, shouldn't mean taking away from women. It's already illegal discriminate or abuse trans people and that won't change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Alternatively, looking after vulnerable minorities is one mark of a civilised society, even if one of those minorities includes ONLY five hundred thousand people.

---

That's not alternative to what I'm saying at all. I've already highlighted that trans people should be protected under the law as trans people, which should be agreeable to everyone.

I have a colleague at work who is biologically male, but self identifies as a woman. My colleague asks that we use the feminine pronouns to refer to her, so we all do.

She looks, for all intents and purposes, like a traditional male, and uses the 'Mens' toilets in the office. If she suddenly felt uncomfortable doing so she would, under company rules, be allowed to use the mixed-sex/disabled toilets provided on every floor.

She is a very nice person and I have the greatest of respect for her... and as far as i know, so do the rest of my colleagues.



Why can't that just be the norm?

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Alternatively, looking after vulnerable minorities is one mark of a civilised society, even if one of those minorities includes ONLY five hundred thousand people.

---

Trans people are already protected under the Equality Act, the ruling made no changes to that. The difficulty is the balancing of it all as when you start taking rights away from a huge % of the population to appease the feelings of a tiny minority it will lead to conflicts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith_M

I have a colleague at work who is biologically male, but self identifies as a woman. My colleague asks that we use the feminine pronouns to refer to her, so we all do.

She looks, for all intents and purposes, like a traditional male, and uses the 'Mens' toilets in the office. If she suddenly felt uncomfortable doing so she would, under company rules, be allowed to use the mixed-sex/disabled toilets provided on every floor.

She is a very nice person and I have the greatest of respect for her... and as far as i know, so do the rest of my colleagues.



Why can't that just be the norm?

:confused:

---

By 'looks like a traditional male' do you mean she dresses in men's clothing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

Trans people are already protected under the Equality Act, the ruling made no changes to that. The difficulty is the balancing of it all as when you start taking rights away from a huge % of the population to appease the feelings of a tiny minority it will lead to conflicts.

---

I'm not well up on the fine detail of this. What specific right do you take away from a woman by allowing a trans woman to share a washhand basin area with her?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

I'm not well up on the fine detail of this. What specific right do you take away from a woman by allowing a trans woman to share a washhand basin area with her?

---

Going by the law then having a man in their legally protected space. For some women sharing a toilet or changing rooms with men is fine, for some it isn't and that's their right to object to that. I don't think us as men should be telling woman how they should act or feel about situations as you don't know their background and history. If you saw a woman objecting to this and told her she was being ridiculous how would you feel is she told you she was the victim of domestic abuse or worse and wanted the woman's toilets as a safe space for woman? Woman have fought hard to get their rights, we should not be chipping them away in my opinion so we don't hurt the feelings of a minority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

I'm not well up on the fine detail of this. What specific right do you take away from a woman by allowing a trans woman to share a washhand basin area with her?

---

Your deliberately picking the smallest issue to belittle all of the women's issues. Yes they won't have a problem with wash hand basin but things got so bizarre that the head of rape crisis Scotland was telling women who had been raped that they had bigoted views if they didn't want biological males in their hostels and support centres. You take away the right of a female to change naked at work with only their own biological sex. You take away their right to complete in sports with their own biological equivalent. You take away their right to have intimate medical care from your own sex if that is your choice. You take away lesbians rights to have groups and support that is biological female only

I think the extreme trans activists don't really help the trans cause. The protest today in Edinburgh they sang about "giving us wombs and titties"

https://x.com/satiricole/status/1913...BOKA41ayg&s=19

Does this help trans people and the public opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

Going by the law then having a man in their legally protected space. For some women sharing a toilet or changing rooms with men is fine, for some it isn't and that's their right to object to that. I don't think us as men should be telling woman how they should act or feel about situations as you don't know their background and history. If you saw a woman objecting to this and told her she was being ridiculous how would you feel is she told you she was the victim of domestic abuse or worse and wanted the woman's toilets as a safe space for woman? Woman have fought hard to get their rights, we should not be chipping them away in my opinion so we don't hurt the feelings of a minority.

---

They fought hard to get the vote, fought hard to get equal pay, etc etc etc. Did they really fight for the right to separate toilets? When did that happen? Didn't men just decide/assume that they should have separate toilets? Was there a time in the long-ago when toilets were shared? dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Your deliberately picking the smallest issue to belittle all of the women's issues. Yes they won't have a problem with wash hand basin but things got so bizarre that the head of rape crisis Scotland was telling women who had been raped that they had bigoted views if they didn't want biological males in their hostels and support centres. You take away the right of a female to change naked at work with only their own biological sex. You take away their right to complete in sports with their own biological equivalent. You take away their right to have intimate medical care from your own sex if that is your choice. You take away lesbians rights to have groups and support that is biological female only

---

Not doing anything of the sort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

They fought hard to get the vote, fought hard to get equal pay, etc etc etc. Did they really fight for the right to separate toilets? When did that happen? Didn't men just decide/assume that they should have separate toilets? Was there a time in the long-ago when toilets were shared? dunno:

---

If you don't support woman having their own spaces just come out and say so? If you really are interested though.

https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/History-of-Womens-Public-Toilets-in-Britain/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Not doing anything of the sort.

---

You are, even in the reply above your focusing on toilets saying did they really fight for that. In reality that's one of the smaller issues, especially next to something like single sex support for people who have been raped or hostels for domestic violence victims etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

If you don't support woman having their own spaces just come out and say so? If you really are interested though.

https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureU...ts-in-Britain/

---

Interesting article thanks but I read that as women campaigning for public toilets, not campaigning for single sex toilets. In a similar way, women more recently have campaigned for access to other sorts of place from which they were previously unfairly excluded, like golf clubs and bits of Lords cricket ground.

I still don't fully understand why people of all genders and none seem happy to share swimming pools but not wash hand basins.

The wash hand basins issue is nothing to do with trans people in sport. Who takes part in sporting competitions, like the manner in which the competitions are run, is surely a matter of fairness rather than 'rights that women have fought hard for and don't want to give up'.

Perhaps it would be better if how public, workplace etc toilets are to be managed should also be a matter of fairness. At the moment it seems you have to be a warrior for either TERFS or trans people. How fair is it that 500,000 people should be othered, or be required to other themselves, just because they are, according to some of the warriors on this board, a 'tiny minority'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

You are, even in the reply above your focusing on toilets saying did they really fight for that. In reality that's one of the smaller issues, especially next to something like single sex support for people who have been raped or hostels for domestic violence victims etc

---

A lot of the mass media focus seems to be on the management of toilet facilities. And with it a lot of sloppy thinking and headlines based on very vocal minorities on two sides of an argument which probably should not be two-sided, as it's essentially about balancing and protecting the vulnerabilities of two groups of vulnerable people, one of them very large and one very small. It's a bit unhealthy in our society that going for a pee and washing your hands is mixed up with rape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

By 'looks like a traditional male' do you mean she dresses in men's clothing?

---

I'm sure you know exactly what I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

A lot of the mass media focus seems to be on the management of toilet facilities. And with it a lot of sloppy thinking and headlines based on very vocal minorities on two sides of an argument which probably should not be two-sided, as it's essentially about balancing and protecting the vulnerabilities of two groups of vulnerable people, one of them very large and one very small. It's a bit unhealthy in our society that going for a pee and washing your hands is mixed up with rape.

---

To be honest your the one only wanting to talk about toilets which is a small issue compared to the problems that came when Scots gov said trans women are literally women. You can't have one or the other in law. By saying they were literally women it led to biological male rapists going into women's prisons, BM going into women's hostels and abuse shelters, BM giving females intimate care even if they requested females, BM playing in female sports, BM needing to be included in lesbian support groups and the head of Rape crisis Scotland saying female victims of rape needed reeducation to stop there bigotry if the didn't want BM in their groups and support.

If I was trying to ignore the many real and worrying problems that comes with saying trans women are literally women, I'd keep bringing up silly little washhand basins, titter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith_M

I'm sure you know exactly what I mean.

---

I don't because I've never as far as I know been in your workplace.

You're asking why can't that be the norm, since she and everyone else is so comfortable with the arrangement. But if she dresses as a woman, are you suggesting she's just as comfortable using men's toilets everywhere as she is using them in the relatively cosy atmosphere of your workplace? :dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

To be honest your the one only wanting to talk about toilets which is a small issue compared to the problems that came when Scots gov said trans women are literally women. You can't have one or the other in law. By saying they were literally women it led to biological male rapists going into women's prisons, BM going into women's hostels and abuse shelters, BM giving females intimate care even if they requested females, BM playing in female sports, BM needing to be included in lesbian support groups and the head of Rape crisis Scotland saying female victims of rape needed reeducation to stop there bigotry if the didn't want BM in their groups and support.

If I was trying to ignore the many real and worrying problems that comes with saying trans women are literally women, I'd keep bringing up silly little washhand basins, titter

---

You seem completely unable to separate the question I was asking from your general warlike stance on women's safety. I don't disagree with any of it. I hope you get your medal when they're dished out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Green Reaper

Does the Supreme Court ruling not actually mean the opposite, as it has been ruled that 'Female' in the context of the 2010 Equalities Act, now means a 'biological Female'?

---

Yes it does, I blame Sturgeon's Scots Government for causing the confusion that made the Supreme Court ruling necessary. When Sturgeon said that trans women are women The Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act got muddled, so that if a hetrosexual man got a piece of paper saying that he is a women and is a lesbian, any lesbian group of more than 25 would by law have to admit him, so freedom of association was destroyed.

While I see the Supreme Court ruling as a win for common sense, part of me thinks that it's insane the amount of money that will have been spent and legislative time on something so basic and obvious, it's nuts that we need lawyers and judges to tell us what a women is when it's just patently obvious. They account for around half of the worlds population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

Yes it does, I blame Sturgeon's Scots Government for causing the confusion that made the Supreme Court ruling necessary. When Sturgeon said that trans women are women The Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act got muddled, so that if a hetrosexual man got a piece of paper saying that he is a women and is a lesbian, any lesbian group of more than 25 would by law have to admit him, so freedom of association was destroyed.

While I see the Supreme Court ruling as a win for common sense, part of me thinks that it's insane the amount of money that will have been spent and legislative time on something so basic and obvious, it's nuts that we need lawyers and judges to tell us what a women is when it's just patently obvious. They account for around half of the worlds population.

---

Doubt the current SG will be spending any money or time on it now. New leadership, new direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Doubt the current SG will be spending any money or time on it now. New leadership, new direction.

---

I think John Swinney already said as much, that they fully accept the decision and have no plans to contest it.

I agree with the previous poster as well that said it reflects badly on the SNP/Greens that they spent so much time and money on this in the first place.

It's also not a good look for Scottish Labour (particularly Sarwar), who seem to be forgetting, that they also voted in favour of the policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

You seem completely unable to separate the question I was asking from your general warlike stance on women's safety. I don't disagree with any of it. I hope you get your medal when they're dished out.

---

The point is it can't be separated. By scot gov saying GRA makes trans literally a woman then all female spaces are grouped together, from wash hand basins to support groups. It doesn't effect me personally but my wife and daughter are happy with the decision. Hopefully women can get their own spaces and groups going forward and unisex toilets become much more common and people can get on with the real issues like gas prices and a genocide in Gaza. Thankfully Swinney looks like he's done with the culture wars and is moving on, I think the old damage is done to the SNP and they won't be effected going forward. Sarwar is rightfully getting slammed for looking like a revisionist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith_M

I think John Swinney already said as much, that they fully accept the decision and have no plans to contest it.

I agree with the previous poster as well that said it reflects badly on the SNP/Greens that they spent so much time and money on this in the first place.

It's also not a good look for Scottish Labour (particularly Sarwar), who seem to be forgetting, that they also voted in favour of the policy.

---

I wonder if this was the pushing of the greens on the SNP/Green government.

Without the Greens I’d be distancing myself from the third rail that this issue bizarrely seems to have become. Concentrate on Independence. Sell that vision. Stick to the rasion d’etre.

J

Interesting to read the conversation on here and compare some of it to my other social media.

I'm a supporter of the supreme court ruling. Self certification and the like isn't enough of a qualifying criteria for people with penises to access protected spaces designated for women. Organisations were tying themselves in knots about this kind of thing, now they have clarity.

I've been castigated on a personal level for pointing out to a Facebook friend that the court ruling in no way compromises Trans people's rights under the Equalities Act. The person in question is 21, a student and immersed in arts and culture. They claim so so many of their friends are hurting as a result of this decision, say that I only know one Trans person (a fairly close family member as it happens) and equate JK Rowling with exerting influence comparable to the like of Musk and his Cabal of Oligarchs.

Freedom of thought and the right to have a different opinion, presenting it in a non agitated way for debate, well that's apparently not acceptable to the self-righteous liberal young person..

Culture War is for me just another facet of the mass manipulation of people. We are such a divided society, the rise of the populism and the far right, the ****ing up of young people through overuse of mobile devices, de-sensitisation and exposure to porn, violence and nihilism, the cult of influential
right wing individuals, disillusionment with politicians etc, etc.....it's not taking us to a good place.

Hurt feelings cannot justify the expressions of hatred towards anyone who agrees with the Supreme Court ruling that I’ve seen via and on social media. Some very unhinged individuals amongst the trans community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee

Hurt feelings cannot justify the expressions of hatred towards anyone who agrees with the Supreme Court ruling that I’ve seen via and on social media. Some very unhinged individuals amongst the trans community.

---

I have no doubt there are, just as there are in the mainstream communities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee

Hurt feelings cannot justify the expressions of hatred towards anyone who agrees with the Supreme Court ruling that I’ve seen via and on social media. Some very unhinged individuals amongst the trans community.

---

That's what happens when views become polarised, you get nutcases on both sides.

SG will not bring any more gender legislation forward. The issue is over as far as the SNP are concerned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

SG will not bring any more gender legislation forward. The issue is over as far as the SNP are concerned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

It's not just the SNP who realized they were on the wrong side of public opinion with this issue, Kier Starmer said that he welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court and that it has given us much needed clarity, when asked if a trans women is an actual women, Kier Starmer said that a woman is an adult human female.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

That's what happens when views become polarised, you get nutcases on both sides.

---

Yes, indeed.

I also think when such priority and influence is given to a minority issue it creates that very divisive polemic in mainstream society.

For me, the culture war aspect is very significant. How did self certification and access to gender protected safe spaces ever get to be such a significant issue in western society to begin with?

The cynic can't help thinking it's something semi manufactured that serves the interests of those who benefit from right wing populism. Trump, Reform and the far right and their supporters must love it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

The cynic can't help thinking it's something semi manufactured that serves the interests of those who benefit from right wing populism. Trump, Reform and the far right and their supporters must love it.

---

You don't have to be cynic, it is exactly that and they do.

In the late 70s when NF supporters were ruining gigs an NME writer said if the Tufty Club salute was seen as disgraceful those idiots would be doing that, and the very next week skinheads were seen doing the Tufty Club salute.

Anything seen as divisive - they will be upon it and radicalising polarising views.

What requires a nuanced, calm discussion will now be cluttered with raging bams.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

Yes, indeed.

I also think when such priority and influence is given to a minority issue it creates that very divisive polemic in mainstream society.

For me, the culture war aspect is very significant. How did self certification and access to gender protected safe spaces ever get to be such a significant issue in western society to begin with?

The cynic can't help thinking it's something semi manufactured that serves the interests of those who benefit from right wing populism. Trump, Reform and the far right and their supporters must love it.

---

There’s nothing cynical about it. That’s exactly what happened. Populists love these issues. Things that don’t need evidence people can “feel” it. Then use it as a wedge for every other policy.

The boats, bin collection in Birmingham, Brexit, potholes, trans people, COVID Vaccine, “woke”, BLM.

Standard right wing playbook.

In America Chuck in Abortion, more immigrants, Israel, guns and you have a full set.

J

Are people suggesting the trans issues we are seeing now were manufactured by "right wing" groups or people?

How does that explain the extreme trans activists that pushed this hard, the politicians from all parties who pushed this and the likes of the deranged Maggie Chapman who wants children to transition etc? Was Nicola Sturgeon who was a big supporter really fooled by right wing propaganda and was so easily fooled to push the trans agenda? I mean we literally heard nothing about this until it was progressed by the Scottish Government and the SNP/Greens, were they so easily manipulated? Really?

Unless I am totally misunderstanding the last few posts (which is perfectly possible to be fair)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

Are people suggesting the trans issues we are seeing now were manufactured by "right wing" groups or people?

How does that explain the extreme trans activists that pushed this hard, the politicians from all parties who pushed this and the likes of the deranged Maggie Chapman who wants children to transition etc? Was Nicola Sturgeon who was a big supporter really fooled by right wing propaganda and was so easily fooled to push the trans agenda? I mean we literally heard nothing about this until it was progressed by the Scottish Government and the SNP/Greens, were they so easily manipulated? Really?

Unless I am totally misunderstanding the last few posts (which is perfectly possible to be fair)

---

I think you're totally misunderstanding the last few posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

You don't have to be cynic, it is exactly that and they do.

In the late 70s when NF supporters were ruining gigs an NME writer said if the Tufty Club salute was seen as disgraceful those idiots would be doing that, and the very next week skinheads were seen doing the Tufty Club salute.

Anything seen as divisive - they will be upon it and radicalising polarising views.

What requires a nuanced, calm discussion will now be cluttered with raging bams.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

They have been doing it for decades if not 100s of years. What makes it worse is the left can't win elections against such obvious tactics despite knowing exactly what the playbook of teh other side will be. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6OLyRdydZU&ab_channel=RebelHQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bristolhibby

There’s nothing cynical about it. That’s exactly what happened. Populists love these issues. Things that don’t need evidence people can “feel” it. Then use it as a wedge for every other policy.

The boats, bin collection in Birmingham, Brexit, potholes, trans people, COVID Vaccine, “woke”, BLM.

Standard right wing playbook.

In America Chuck in Abortion, more immigrants, Israel, guns and you have a full set.

J

---

I've always maintained that if everyone enjoyed a decent basic standard of living, were paid wages that allowed them to both meet their essential needs and have a bit enjoyment in their life, could afford to buy a house or rent at a rate that didn't hoover up over 50% of their income and had access to public services that were properly functioning then pretty much every 'biggest threat to ever face our country' would disappear or at least significantly quieten down overnight.

That's dangerous 'extreme left' thinking these days though which is exactly why these issues are highlighted to such extreme levels. It's all to create division, fracture working class solidarity and distract from the real enemy. There is a reason actual billionaires pay people from Farage at the top end to a weasel like Darren Grimes on social media huge amounts of money to spew the rhetoric. The latest 'outrage' seems to be feeding children FFS.

I 100% believe if people were happy and content in their own lives they would find the utter bull**** being thrown around laughable rather than something to be genuinely upset about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I've always maintained that if everyone enjoyed a decent basic standard of living, were paid wages that allowed them to both meet their essential needs and have a bit enjoyment in their life, could afford to buy a house or rent at a rate that didn't hoover up over 50% of their income and had access to public services that were properly functioning then pretty much every 'biggest threat to ever face our country' would disappear or at least significantly quieten down overnight.

That's dangerous 'extreme left' thinking these days though which is exactly why these issues are highlighted to such extreme levels. It's all to create division, fracture working class solidarity and distract from the real enemy. There is a reason actual billionaires pay people from Farage at the top end to a weasel like Darren Grimes on social media huge amounts of money to spew the rhetoric. The latest 'outrage' seems to be feeding children FFS.

I 100% believe if people were happy and content in their own lives they would find the utter bull**** being thrown around laughable rather than something to be genuinely upset about.

---

That is exactly it.


....and it's no mistake that the right wing "messaging" has shot up since 2008, as what was required after that was a bit of socialism. A bit is too much for them however.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I've always maintained that if everyone enjoyed a decent basic standard of living, were paid wages that allowed them to both meet their essential needs and have a bit enjoyment in their life, could afford to buy a house or rent at a rate that didn't hoover up over 50% of their income and had access to public services that were properly functioning then pretty much every 'biggest threat to ever face our country' would disappear or at least significantly quieten down overnight.

That's dangerous 'extreme left' thinking these days though which is exactly why these issues are highlighted to such extreme levels. It's all to create division, fracture working class solidarity and distract from the real enemy. There is a reason actual billionaires pay people from Farage at the top end to a weasel like Darren Grimes on social media huge amounts of money to spew the rhetoric. The latest 'outrage' seems to be feeding children FFS.

I 100% believe if people were happy and content in their own lives they would find the utter bull**** being thrown around laughable rather than something to be genuinely upset about.

---

Your 1st paragraph is basically just about all if not the vast majority of Scandinavian countries and a whole lot more besides. It's not radical to think like that, it's certainly not "extreme left" but unfortunately in the UK two party system we have 650 people, backed up by the MSM that are more incentivised to try to either keep or gain power which doesn't always align to what's best for the country or its people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Bee

Your 1st paragraph is basically just about all if not the vast majority of Scandinavian countries and a whole lot more besides. It's not radical to think like that, it's certainly not "extreme left" but unfortunately in the UK two party system we have 650 people, backed up by the MSM that are more incentivised to try to either keep or gain power which doesn't always align to what's best for the country or its people.

---

All of this, and what PB says above pretty much sums it up for me. If only it wasn't for vested interest and the greedy and powerful wanting even more of what they already have.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I've always maintained that if everyone enjoyed a decent basic standard of living, were paid wages that allowed them to both meet their essential needs and have a bit enjoyment in their life, could afford to buy a house or rent at a rate that didn't hoover up over 50% of their income and had access to public services that were properly functioning then pretty much every 'biggest threat to ever face our country' would disappear or at least significantly quieten down overnight.

That's dangerous 'extreme left' thinking these days though which is exactly why these issues are highlighted to such extreme levels. It's all to create division, fracture working class solidarity and distract from the real enemy. There is a reason actual billionaires pay people from Farage at the top end to a weasel like Darren Grimes on social media huge amounts of money to spew the rhetoric. The latest 'outrage' seems to be feeding children FFS.

I 100% believe if people were happy and content in their own lives they would find the utter bull**** being thrown around laughable rather than something to be genuinely upset about.

---

Social and economic justice in other words. Who can disagree with what you say other than those that benefit from squeezing every ounce from people. Of course they're not all super wealthy. There is benefit for people all the way down a food chain of exploitative, socially regressive, economic opportunity.

Earlier in the thread Jamie was asking why the centre and centre left parties have run with the trans extreme agenda. I'm no political analyst, but I see the trickle down effect from the impotent American liberal left. In the USA they have no direct political power, but can work within and influence organisations. What happened in Scotland was mirrored elsewhere, it wasn't unique.

Whether Sturgeon believed in what her government was promoting is a moot point. Either way, It was a huge misjudgement from the SNP, they should have saved their radical focus for matters relating to independence.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1ARGi5X8wj/


Absolutely worth a read. IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1ARGi5X8wj/


Absolutely worth a read. IMHO.

---

"Objective reality doesn't matter, feelings and clothes do"

Come on, we live in a material, definable world. The denial of that importance, the writing off of anyone who understands that as a bigot, is a kind of religious zelotry.
If you ask people to deny the evidence of their eyes and ears they will ask questions, and if you can't give them a straight answer, they won't be happy - and rightly so. It's just gaslighting.


Stood down from politics to speak to rooms of people who agree with her and laugh at her jokes. Tough talking flop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 500miles

"Objective reality doesn't matter, feelings and clothes do"

Come on, we live in a material, definable world. The denial of that importance, the writing off of anyone who understands that as a bigot, is a kind of religious zelotry.
If you ask people to deny the evidence of their eyes and ears they will ask questions, and if you can't give them a straight answer, they won't be happy - and rightly so. It's just gaslighting.


Stood down from politics to speak to rooms of people who agree with her and laugh at her jokes. Tough talking flop.

---

The if you don't agree with trans women being in every women's field then your a fascist right winger, is the kind of thing that has reform and Trump flying. A huge othering of the working classes who are disenfranchised and don't agree with the liberal bourgeois left on many subjects, like biological males hammering women at sports for example, or the middle class in the greens saying don't build houses when thousands can't get a home.

Marina Hyde wrote a good article on the bollocks her words of the lefts tactic of issue bundling. All these varied subjects and issues are left because I say they are and if your disagree with any then you are Trump. She goes into it through the subject of the academy fawning over its star trans women Karla Sofía Gascón, it then coming out she was a horrible bigot and the academy crying

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/07/oscars-award-emilia-perez-progressive

John Swinney still can't answer if a trans woman is a woman. Has been asked multiple times but won't answer, it was a real opportunity for him to take a different path but he avoids answering the question every time. With the court ruling I don't see why he can't have the confidence to answer. If the SNP want this to go away he should be able to answer this question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

John Swinney still can't answer if a trans woman is a woman. Has been asked multiple times but won't answer, it was a real opportunity for him to take a different path but he avoids answering the question every time. With the court ruling I don't see why he can't have the confidence to answer. If the SNP want this to go away he should be able to answer this question.

---

The SNP have moved on and are complying with the law. There are more important issues in Scotland.
You seem obsessed with the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

The SNP have moved on and are complying with the law. There are more important issues in Scotland.
You seem obsessed with the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Not as obsessed with you and Labour! But I think it's important that our First Minister can answer questions when asked and give a direct answer, not avoid them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

Not as obsessed with you and Labour! But I think it's important that our First Minister can answer questions when asked and give a direct answer, not avoid them.

---

Politicians giving direct answers?

Not in this universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith_M

Politicians giving direct answers?

Not in this universe.

---

I know but on this question it's a fairly simple answer, he was asked multiple times in the immediate aftermath of the court ruling and couldn't answer, he was asked at anti right wing summit (or whatever it was) and couldn't answer, Patrick Harvie and Ash Regan answered with a direct Yes and No and he was asked again today. It's obvious he is scared to upset the trans lobby and I know people want this to go away, it would surely go away faster if he could answer the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

I know but on this question it's a fairly simple answer, he was asked multiple times in the immediate aftermath of the court ruling and couldn't answer, he was asked at anti right wing summit (or whatever it was) and couldn't answer, Patrick Harvie and Ash Regan answered with a direct Yes and No and he was asked again today. It's obvious he is scared to upset the trans lobby and I know people want this to go away, it would surely go away faster if he could answer the question.

---

You also know that the questioning is about political point-scoring. Whatever he says, whether he says anything, he will be pilloried.

Qed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

You also know that the questioning is about political point-scoring. Whatever he says, whether he says anything, he will be pilloried.

Qed.

---

And it doesn’t matter. The law is set and the SNP have no intention of changing it. They are leaving culture wars behind and focussing on the economy.
Certain people are desperate to keep the issue alive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

And it doesn’t matter. The law is set and the SNP have no intention of changing it. They are leaving culture wars behind and focussing on the economy.
Certain people are desperate to keep the issue alive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I'd agree that the issue will no longer be a party-political one. And that's the way it should be.

It will remain one at grass-roots level, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

And it doesn’t matter. The law is set and the SNP have no intention of changing it. They are leaving culture wars behind and focussing on the economy.
Certain people are desperate to keep the issue alive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I hope so but they should make it clear soon, as it will be damaging until it's sorted

The first minister said: "We are considering the details of the Supreme Court judgment, taking the necessary advice from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission about the application of that advice, and that will have a bearing on the judgments that are made in relation to public services and I would expect... all public bodies to operate on that basis and within the law."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kxr4y3mv8o.amp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

I hope so but they should make it clear soon, as it will be damaging until it's sorted

The first minister said: "We are considering the details of the Supreme Court judgment, taking the necessary advice from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission about the application of that advice, and that will have a bearing on the judgments that are made in relation to public services and I would expect... all public bodies to operate on that basis and within the law."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc...kxr4y3mv8o.amp

---

That is pretty clear? They are going to apply the law? Not much else to be said.
With Forbes part of leadership team there is no way they do anything else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also I'd say Swinney should have sacked the looney Maggie Chapman as deputy of the Equalities, Human Rights & Civil Justice Committee when she said 6 year olds should be allowed to medically transition, her having no medical background. Her saying yesterday that the court acted out of bigotry and prejudice should surely be the final nail

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Also I'd say Swinney should have sacked the looney Maggie Chapman as deputy of the Equalities, Human Rights & Civil Justice Committee when she said 6 year olds should be allowed to medically transition, her having no medical background. Her saying yesterday that the court acted out of bigotry and prejudice should surely be the final nail

---

Can he do that? Isn’t she a green?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Can he do that? Isn’t she a green?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Obviously he can't personally sack her, but he must condemn the US republican like comments, attacking the law. He could call for her to step down from the committee. He basically said he disagreed with her opinion. How can both sides of the argument move forward when she is deputy. The faculty of Advocates have made an official complaint against her

The tories have tabled a motion on the committee for her to be removed if the 3 SNP members agree she will be out we'll see I suppose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Obviously he can't personally sack her, but he must condemn the US republican like comments, attacking the law. He could call for her to step down from the committee. He basically said he disagreed with her opinion. How can both sides of the argument move forward when she is deputy. The faculty of Advocates have made an official complaint against her

The tories have tabled a motion on the committee for her to be removed if the 3 SNP members agree she will be out we'll see I suppose

---

There is no mechanism for any msp to be sack!!

We've been here before, they can be suspended and the whip removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

There is no mechanism for any msp to be sack!!

We've been here before, they can be suspended and the whip removed.

---

Whip removed is basically sacked from the party, then she has zero chance as an independent in the next election. But I clarified that obviously Swinney can't personally sack her from the equalities committee but he can have her removed. As the tories have tabled the motion, and if SNP go with it it then goes to parliament. Obviously she has no chance in parliament if the SNP want her sacked from the committee.

It will be interesting how it pans out the pressure from both sides will be big. If they back her a lot of the public will be against, if they get her out the greens will have a hissy

https://youtu.be/PFHVYKrNpNk?si=KhMnaz4hNfhIKbtv

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Whip removed is basically sacked from the party, then she has zero chance as an independent in the next election. But I clarified that obviously Swinney can't personally sack her from the equalities committee but he can have her removed. As the tories have tabled the motion, and if SNP go with it it then goes to parliament. Obviously she has no chance in parliament if the SNP want her sacked from the committee.

It will be interesting how it pans out the pressure from both sides will be big. If they back her a lot of the public will be against, if they get her out the greens will have a hissy

---

He can’t remove whip as not his party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

https://youtu.be/PFHVYKrNpNk?si=KhMnaz4hNfhIKbtv

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

In order to accommodate the unsubstantiated beliefs of 1% of the population, we must change everyone else's lives, as those beliefs demand the participation of everyone else.

And I think the athlete he was referring to was Caster Semenya, who has admitted having internal testes and is indeed male and should have been competing in that category.

We should not legislate according to a tiny minorities belief systems, particularly those which fly in the face of measurable and definable reality. I know I'm repeating myself but for reasons already outlined, it's a disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 500miles

In order to accommodate the unsubstantiated beliefs of 1% of the population, we must change everyone else's lives, as those beliefs demand the participation of everyone else.

And I think the athlete he was referring to was Caster Semenya, who has admitted having internal testes and is indeed male and should have been competing in that category.

We should not legislate according to a tiny minorities belief systems, particularly those which fly in the face of measurable and definable reality. I know I'm repeating myself but for reasons already outlined, it's a disaster.

---

You have a point. I don't know much about the specific cases you mention and don't really have any quibbles.

There is also way more pressing matters among the general population, I agree. The courts have made their decision so maybe the far more prevalent concern of male violence against women could be addressed by those new activists for women's rights who have been energised the last few years.

What I took from the clip was the idea that society is in a state of flux with the matter and sober discussion towards a solution, which will take time, is required - rather than point scoring and rigid positions.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

He can’t remove whip as not his party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Yes obviously, I thought it didn't need saying that it's the greens that can remove the whip, obviously they won't because they probably think it's acceptable to say the court is bigoted.

He can whip his MSPs in the committee to back the Conservative motion to have her removed from deputy of the equalities committee. It then goes for a majority in parliament to agree if he whips it then she's out. She obviously should get booted if he's moving in from her rhetoric, but the greens won't be happy with him. It's going to be a clear side taking and I'm interested how it'll go next week

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

I'm not well up on the fine detail of this. What specific right do you take away from a woman by allowing a trans woman to share a washhand basin area with her?

---

Britain's supreme court rules that women legally exist and trans activists have a temper tantrum, women's washrooms and changing areas being protected areas for women only is like the rise of the fourth reich for trans activists, placards that read "The only good TERF is a dead one, are aimed at Lesbians who don't accept that men who identify as women into their dating pool and women who want protected single sex spaces. Its deeply misogynistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

Britain's supreme court rules that women legally exist and trans activists have a temper tantrum, women's washrooms and changing areas being protected areas for women only is like the rise of the fourth reich for trans activists, placards that read "The only good TERF is a dead one, are aimed at Lesbians who don't accept that men who identify as women into their dating pool and women who want protected single sex spaces. Its deeply misogynistic.

---

Lucky we have your balanced viewpoint.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Lucky we have your balanced viewpoint.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Its more balanced than Maggie Chapman and Patrick Harvie's, the green tail is no longer wagging the SNP dog but we still don't know where Brian Sweeney is on the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Lucky we have your balanced viewpoint.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

To be fair, the only difference between the people holding placards about killing TERFs and me is the the clothes they wear. You can bet if I was marching about the city centre with a sign saying "Feminists can suck my xxxx", there wouldn't be a "Well what it actually means....." type reaction.

People are giving their own tribes an incredible amount of leeway here. Everything within their bubble has an excuse and everyone outside is a facist, or on the opposing end a communist.

https://www.libdems.org.uk/news/arti...-scotland-case

The Liberal Democrats response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

https://www.libdems.org.uk/news/arti...-scotland-case

The Liberal Democrats response.

---

Perhaps the Lib Dems could elaborate on what they would do, rather than just state the obvious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

Perhaps the Lib Dems could elaborate on what they would do, rather than just state the obvious?

---

... whatever it takes to get them into Government? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

Perhaps the Lib Dems could elaborate on what they would do, rather than just state the obvious?

---

I think they are clear in what they are asking for.

However, given what she said, I am sure that she will agree with me that that should not come at the cost of the human rights and the security of another vulnerable group in society, which is what this ruling threatens to bring about. Could she explain where transgender people fleeing violence can now go for refuge, if they are to be completely excluded from refuges?

"For years, we have had this intolerable debate, in which two vulnerable groups have been pitted against each other. Those two groups are afraid of the same thing—violence, mostly from men.*

"The challenge for this Labour Government is to live up to the spirit of perhaps one of the proudest achievements of a previous Labour Government—the Equality Act—and protect everyone. If this Government are not able to do that, does the Minister think it would be acceptable to see trans women forced into men’s toilets, to face goodness knows what sort of aggression, and potentially violence, there? Will she confirm what she says about protecting trans rights?*



They are asking for protection of transgender people. Something that wasn't included in the Supreme Court judgment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

... whatever it takes to get them into Government? :rolleyes:

---

Mr Ed returning to government again in an alliance with Badenoch this time?[emoji16]

Principles? What principles? Is their motto.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

I think they are clear in what they are asking for.

However, given what she said, I am sure that she will agree with me that that should not come at the cost of the human rights and the security of another vulnerable group in society, which is what this ruling threatens to bring about. Could she explain where transgender people fleeing violence can now go for refuge, if they are to be completely excluded from refuges?

"For years, we have had this intolerable debate, in which two vulnerable groups have been pitted against each other. Those two groups are afraid of the same thing—violence, mostly from men.*

"The challenge for this Labour Government is to live up to the spirit of perhaps one of the proudest achievements of a previous Labour Government—the Equality Act—and protect everyone. If this Government are not able to do that, does the Minister think it would be acceptable to see trans women forced into men’s toilets, to face goodness knows what sort of aggression, and potentially violence, there? Will she confirm what she says about protecting trans rights?*



They are asking for protection of transgender people. Something that wasn't included in the Supreme Court judgment.

---

What she is missing is that the EA provides for exclusion "where it is proportionate". In other words, it's not set in stone that trans women (pre or post-surgery) will be excluded. It will be up to those who use that space to make the judgement.

It's not ideal, of course, but neither is it as bleak as what is being suggested.

I'd prefer making a gender neutral toilet the norm, have trans female sections of male hostels, prisons and support groups in each UK country where needed

Hopefully it's the end of trans females being in female sports, prisons and hostels it's been utterly bizarre. I genuinely can't believe we've had a period where a professional biological male UFC fighters have fought women and male pre-op trans female rapists were going to put in female prisons, to protect them as a vulnerable group of biological males

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

I'd prefer making a gender neutral toilet the norm, have trans female sections of male hostels, prisons and support groups in each UK country where needed

Hopefully it's the end of trans females being in female sports, prisons and hostels it's been utterly bizarre. I genuinely can't believe we've had a period where a professional biological male UFC fighters have fought women and male pre-op trans female rapists were going to put in female prisons, to protect them as a vulnerable group of biological males

---

The problem with gender neutral toilets is that there has been a judgement this week against borders Council because that's what they provided in a new primary school!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

The problem with gender neutral toilets is that there has been a judgement this week against borders Council because that's what they provided in a new primary school!

---

No they only had gender neutral toilets, females should have their own space away from biological males. There is no problem with having 3 toilets male, female, neutral

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

No they only had gender neutral toilets, females should have their own space away from biological males. There is no problem with having 3 toilets male, female, neutral

---

It's a primary school for goodness sake!!!

Here's how daft the Supreme Court ruling is....

A mother can no longer take her toddler son into the female toilets and a father can't take his toddler daughters into the male toilets!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

It's a primary school for goodness sake!!!

Here's how daft the Supreme Court ruling is....

A mother can no longer take her toddler son into the female toilets and a father can't take his toddler daughters into the male toilets!

---

There been a lot of trouble with boys kissing girls by force in my daughters primary. With easy access to **** like Andrew Tate nowadays I'd not be happy if she didn't have a space away from boys up to 12.

It hasn't stopped dads bringing there wee girls into the toilet that would come under where appropriate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

I'd prefer making a gender neutral toilet the norm, have trans female sections of male hostels, prisons and support groups in each UK country where needed

Hopefully it's the end of trans females being in female sports, prisons and hostels it's been utterly bizarre. I genuinely can't believe we've had a period where a professional biological male UFC fighters have fought women and male pre-op trans female rapists were going to put in female prisons, to protect them as a vulnerable group of biological males

---

Would you suggest the same provision for trans-males (pre or post Op)?

I'm genuinely not being facetious but if this latest ruling by the supreme court has the aim to protect biological women, then this genuinely needs to be considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales

Would you suggest the same provision for trans-males (pre or post Op)?

I'm genuinely not being facetious but if this latest ruling by the supreme court has the aim to protect biological women, then this genuinely needs to be considered.

---

No as I've said in the thread previously, when 99% of sexual assaults are committed by males we have a collective guilt to be kept away from biological females safe spaces. There is no increased threat to biological males from biological females being in their spaces. It's also why there isn't a debate around trans males joining in male sports, due to no physical advantage.

Everybody seems to imagine that Trans Culture is a relatively modern thing but I just found this photo of two soldiers in WWII...



Attachment 28734

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

No as I've said in the thread previously, when 99% of sexual assaults are committed by males we have a collective guilt to be kept away from biological females safe spaces. There is no increased threat to biological males from biological females being in their spaces. It's also why there isn't a debate around trans males joining in male sports, due to no physical advantage.

---

So your comfortable with trans-males using male hostels and being sent to male prisons?

Like I said, this judgment was to protect biological females, an unintended "reciprocal" consequence is trans-males being allowed/having to use womens single sex spaces.
I've already seen a backlash on social media, and I'm fairly sure it was staged but a large framed person with facial hair walks in to a female public convenience and although filmed from the outside you could clearly see the bewildered reaction from those coming out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

No as I've said in the thread previously, when 99% of sexual assaults are committed by males we have a collective guilt to be kept away from biological females safe spaces. There is no increased threat to biological males from biological females being in their spaces. It's also why there isn't a debate around trans males joining in male sports, due to no physical advantage.

---

Collective guilt is a tricky road to be going down?[emoji51]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales

So your comfortable with trans-males using male hostels and being sent to male prisons?

Like I said, this judgment was to protect biological females, an unintended "reciprocal" consequence is trans-males being allowed/having to use womens single sex spaces.
I've already seen a backlash on social media, and I'm fairly sure it was staged but a large framed person with facial hair walks in to a female public convenience and although filmed from the outside you could clearly see the bewildered reaction from those coming out.

---

Eh trans males would obviously be sent to female prisons and vice versa as that is the law and obviously the correct thing. This is obviously to protect females hard gotten rights and freedoms. Toilets is used to belittle the real issues like intimate care, hostels and prisons. They should definitely be separated by biological sex, but if the need is there separate sections within that could come

Trans women could use whatever toilet they wanted and no one will know or care, it's a manufactured problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith_M

Everybody seems to imagine that Trans Culture is a relatively modern thing but I just found this photo of two soldiers in WWII...



Attachment 28734

---

I think you'll find that's the RAF Nō2 dress uniform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Collective guilt is a tricky road to be going down?[emoji51]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I don't think it is when it comes to sex. It's pretty simple sexual assault is a male problem so that means you and me who wouldn't hurt anyone, shouldn't be in a female hostel. I don't know why any male would be offended by that. As I said before the Gisele Pelicot case shows there is males in every layer of society that would take advantage of a vulnerable female

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Eh trans males would obviously be sent to female prisons and vice versa as that is the law and obviously the correct thing.

---

That would have been my understanding but when you wrote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

I'd prefer making a gender neutral toilet the norm, have trans female sections of male hostels, prisons and support groups in each UK country where needed

---

I asked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales

Would you suggest the same provision for trans-males (pre or post Op)?

---

You replied

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Eh trans males would obviously be sent to female prisons and vice versa as that is the law and obviously the correct thing.

---

I'm asking, do we segregate trans in general or is it just trans-women (as this whole debate seems to be solely focused on). I'm also wondering where my trans-male friends would go (if imprisoned for whatever reason). HMP Ratho House, general population? Considering they present very much like a hirsute male and are attracted to the female form I think this too could cause issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Toilets is used to belittle the real issues like intimate care, hostels and prisons

---

I couldn't agree more, this is way beyond whether we stand or squat to take a leak (or actually, maybe this is exactly what it's all about 🤔).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales

That would have been my understanding but when you wrote

I asked

You replied


I'm asking, do we segregate trans in general or is it just trans-women (as this whole debate seems to be solely focused on). I'm also wondering where my trans-male friends would go (if imprisoned for whatever reason). HMP Ratho House, general population? Considering they present very much like a hirsute male and are attracted to the female form I think this too could cause issues.


I couldn't agree more, this is way beyond whether we stand or squat to take a leak (or actually, maybe this is exactly what it's all about 🤔).

---

There would be no problem sending a trans male to a female prison, lesbian relationships are hardly unusual in female prisons, but I would segregate them if they wanted it personally. The female prisoners wouldn't care, but they would if a biological male was there. The issue is biological males getting into female spaces because as I say a proportion of males are horrid. Ask any female you know if they have had a male act inappropriate to them, it will be very little amount that say never

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

I think you'll find that's the RAF Nō2 dress uniform.

---

Thanks for clarifying


:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

It's a primary school for goodness sake!!!

Here's how daft the Supreme Court ruling is....

A mother can no longer take her toddler son into the female toilets and a father can't take his toddler daughters into the male toilets!

---

Just for some clarity as a father of toddler daughter - I assume the bottom paragraph is just made up or taken out of context?

USA fencing are banning men who identify as women from taking part in women's fencing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv-FRfGD2CM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danhibees1875

Just for some clarity as a father of toddler daughter - I assume the bottom paragraph is just made up or taken out of context?

---

Yes it was nonsense, hence deleted. Carry on as you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

USA fencing are banning men who identify as women from taking part in women's fencing.

---

Seems logical enough.

If men who identify as women aren't discriminated against in everyday life, like when trying to get a job, then to me that's a much more serious... and I'd imagine much more common... issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

It's a primary school for goodness sake!!!

Here's how daft the Supreme Court ruling is....

A mother can no longer take her toddler son into the female toilets and a father can't take his toddler daughters into the male toilets!

---

I think it's your understanding that's daft :greengrin

As I said above ...."proportionate"

It's so nippy that there isn't an easy answer. I'd vote for paggering real anti trans people and anti trans rhetoric, also JKR is a ball bag for deliberately misgendering at every opportunity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

It's so nippy that there isn't an easy answer. I'd vote for paggering real anti trans people and anti trans rhetoric, also JKR is a ball bag for deliberately misgendering at every opportunity

---

Nothing to disagree with there.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I think it's your understanding that's daft :greengrin

As I said above ...."proportionate"

---

It's the wording of the ruling, no biological males can use female toilets.

It's not just me that thinks there's a problem either.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgenpvzxddno


Are the STUC wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

It's the wording of the ruling, no biological males can use female toilets.

It's not just me that thinks there's a problem either.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgenpvzxddno


Are the STUC wrong?

---

The EA is quite clear.

Proportionality:
The exclusion must be a necessary and reasonable response to the legitimate aim. It cannot be overly broad or unnecessarily restrict access. For example, restricting access to a women's bathroom might be considered proportionate to protect women's privacy, while restricting access to all women-only activities might not be.
Individual Circumstances:
The decision to exclude a trans woman should be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances of the service and the individual's needs.

Refusal where it is proportionate. A woman who has gone through surgery, living as a woman for many years, would not be refused entry to female toilets, because it wouldn't be proportionate. It would be daft. As would a man not being allowed to take his toddler granddaughter into a men's toilet.

As with much relatively new legislation, it will be tweaked as appropriate through test cases and the like.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1meyvpl30eo

Maggie Chapman survives after the SNP support her. And she gets to vote as well which was the deciding vote, makes the Scottish Parliament look a bit daft that she gets a vote and it's the deciding vote.