The amendment to protect women was defeated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Printable View
The amendment to protect women was defeated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Is that what it was called?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/s...8L1KctnVcE8kLg
Sounds like it’s had cross party support.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Just sharing info.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Very tight on some of the main proposals. Tighter than I expected and it would have been interesting to see how many more SNP MSPs went against the party had they not been whipped. Poor not to have allowed a free vote on an issue like this which transcends party politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
That's poor to see the amendment re sex offenders narrowly voted down. Unclear what the Lib Dems feel they have to gain by aligning with the government on that one.
Again, missing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Maybe they just think it's right :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Disabled woman choosing not to have intimate care by biological males, rape victims having support of only biological females, domestic or sexual abuse victims having biological female only shelters. These aren't Victorian or frivolous. Just because they don't affect you or many men saying what should happen, doesn't make it less serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
BBC saying the debate could go on until 0230, anyone still think it's not being rushed through Parliament....even at the height of Covid which was the biggest crisis in our lifetime Parliament never sat like this.
It reminds me of Named Person legislation, eventually found to be illegal and scrapped at a cost of millions.
Didn't we have people with similar concerns regarding black people 40-50 years ago? If someone is qualified to do a job then racial, sexual or religious prejudice shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Like I said, I'm still on the fence with this one but as always education will be the key.
No we really didn't. Education is the key? Education for whom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
For a woman to request (for example) that they have a cervical smear test carried out by a female doctor bears no relation to discriminating against a doctor on racial or religious grounds. For any woman that's a wholly reasonable request. For a woman who has suffered abuse at the hands of a man it's unthinkable that they should have to submit to such an intimate examination by a biological male. That's just one example of the fundamental changes women will have to accept once this significantly flawed legislation is passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Judging by some of the indifferent responses on here (not specifically yours I should add), I increasingly think the UN rapporteur who last night told Holyrood that policymakers with no direct experience of male on female violence cannot grasp the fear some women feel simply sharing a room with men was right.
Education that not all trans people are sex monsters just like not all black people are criminals or all gay people are child abusers. We've been here before but thankfully education has helped to eradicate unjustified fears.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Educate women who have concerns they shouldn't have concerns?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
We've been through this with Irish, gays, blacks and any number of minorities. Why do you think prejudice against trans people is different and acceptable?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
How is a disabled lady who wants a female to give her intimate care accusing a trans person of being a sex monster?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
OK but why would you not support an amendment that specifically excluded sex offenders from the terms of the legislation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
What does a disabled lady have to fear from a trans person?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
You don't think she has a right to have a biological female to give her intimate care, especially if she has been abused by a man in the past? Or should she just get on with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Would a trans person on the sex offenders list be allowed to do a job that involves intimate contact with patients or vulnerable people?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Should someone who was robbed by a black person be allowed to discriminate against all black people.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Like I say, I'm split between both sides of the debate, but that's because there's strong arguments on both sides.
Ask this disabled woman https://twitter.com/hen10freeman/sta...22204467351556Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Powerful stuff, how anyone could read that and still think there isn't a problem is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
No. But nor should I as a white person be allowed to say I'm black just because I feel that I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
What about patients not wanting black people touch them, is that a valid concern? Should all gynecologists be female, should all urologists be male or should people be given a choice rather than simply allowing prejudice to win the day. I'm sure the lady in your example wouldn't have a trans person forced upon her, medical professionals are sensible enough to take individuals circumstances into account when providing treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Ah, so your against the whole idea? That doesn’t really change with the legislation?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That makes no sense, the gender spectrum is not just black and white, there's lots in-between. A better example would be can a person born to different coloured parents decide if they're black, white or something in-between.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Don't be so sure. We already have guidance that if a woman objects to a trans identifying male is in a female ward the line is there are no men in the ward. In addition, it will be a criminal offence to reveal if someone has a GRC. So there can be no discretion in the manner you suggest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Why does it make no sense? f I can identify as anywhere on the 'gender spectrum' then why can't I identify on a racial spectrum?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg