The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

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?

---

As far as I'm concerned you can identify as what you feel you need to. Crack on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

As far as I'm concerned you can identify as what you feel you need to. Crack on.

---

Fine, but it's not all about individual feelings It would undermine anti-racism approaches and work to improve outcomes for racially disadvantaged groups. The issue of confusion with the gender definition is that it confused and vague. And gender isn't sex. Unless you are suggesting that people can change sex?

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?

---

A woman requesting female assistance in the example I gave does not make her prejudiced against trans people.

Bemused by Shona Robison's justification for allowing 16 year olds to change their legal gender. Yes you can vote, leave home or get married at that age but you change your vote, leave a marriage or go back home. If you change your gender you are legally bound to live in it for life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Bemused by Shona Robison's justification for allowing 16 year olds to change their legal gender. Yes you can vote, leave home or get married at that age but you change your vote, leave a marriage or go back home. If you change your gender you are legally bound to live in it for life.

---

You can literally change your gender. That’s what this is all about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Fine, but it's not all about individual feelings It would undermine anti-racism approaches and work to improve outcomes for racially disadvantaged groups. The issue of confusion with the gender definition is that it confused and vague. And gender isn't sex. Unless you are suggesting that people can change sex?

---

According to the recent Court of Session ruling a GRC changes your sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.

We're entering the land of make believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

You can literally change your gender. That’s what this is all about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

That's not the point I'm making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

That's not the point I'm making.

---

I’m not sure what point you were making then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The comparison to racism is abhorrent misogynistic nonsense. Telling a female that has been raped and doesn't want a biological male counselling her, that she is bigoted is brutal.

Men constantly saying, why don't women just get on with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

According to the recent Court of Session ruling a GRC changes your sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.

We're entering the land of make believe.

---

We entered that land a long time ago. These clowns in the SG and Sturgeon in particular are leaving one sorry mess for our offspring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

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.

---

I see the debate had to be brought to an end early due to the Holyrood lighting system being on a timer and leaving the chamber in darkness at midnight. Less than half the 150 amendments had been debated.

A male rapist could change to female after being charged. It will then go as a female on female crime and he would be sent to a female prison if convicted.

LucyHunterB
Tied vote on Michelle Thomson's amendment pausing GRC applications by anyone charged with a sexual offence is a tied vote 61/61. Deputy Presiding Officer (in charge) uses casting vote to defeat citing long-standing convention

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

The amendment to protect women was defeated.

---

In addition to that it's particularly disappointing to read that Michelle Thomson's proposed amendment suggesting a pause to the GRC applications of known sex offenders was defeated by the presiding officer's casting vote after being tied 61-61. Bemused as to how anyone could object to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

The comparison to racism is abhorrent misogynistic nonsense. Telling a female that has been raped and doesn't want a biological male counselling her, that she is bigoted is brutal.

Men constantly saying, why don't women just get on with it.

---

Yep I'm stunned by that.

A victim of sexual assault or rape not wanting to be touched by someone with some or all male sexual organs is comparable to a racist not wanting to be touched by a black doctor.

I read Eddie Izzard the other day saying she can flip between 'boy mode' and 'girl mode' simply by changing shoes. Maybe someone should have told Emily Davidson that, would have let her live a long and happy life. They can tell rape victims that as well; 'well the doctor actually has ladies shoes on so just get on with it you filthy bigot'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

The comparison to racism is abhorrent misogynistic nonsense. Telling a female that has been raped and doesn't want a biological male counselling her, that she is bigoted is brutal.

Men constantly saying, why don't women just get on with it.

---

Oh get off your high horse, comparisons are perfectly legitimate when trying to understand a situation, it's how people build opinions.. It doesn't mean I'm equating one to the other. I've worked with trans people and some of the treatment they receive is akin to racism and due to lack of education they all get stamped as being sexual perverts in much the same way gay people were labelled not so long ago. Nobody is accusing rape victims of being bigots here, that's just you being hyperbolic as usual.

I'm trying to get my head around arguments on both sides and to do that I need to make comparisons and try and see things from both sides of the story, maybe you should try that rather than go at anyone not 100% aligned with your opinion like an attack dog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

A male rapist could change to female after being charged. It will then go as a female on female crime and he would be sent to a female prison if convicted.

LucyHunterB
Tied vote on Michelle Thomson's amendment pausing GRC applications by anyone charged with a sexual offence is a tied vote 61/61. Deputy Presiding Officer (in charge) uses casting vote to defeat citing long-standing convention

---

Does the GRA change that? I thought that could happen already?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Does the GRA change that? I thought that could happen already?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

There will literally be no way of determination now. Its great there is more trans rights. I think everyone on here would be happy for trans people to have every freedom we could offer bar a few minor caveats. The problem is some trans groups don't agree with this, this say trans women are literally women and people who disagree are bigoted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Oh get off your high horse, comparisons are perfectly legitimate when trying to understand a situation, it's how people build opinions.. It doesn't mean I'm equating one to the other. I've worked with trans people and some of the treatment they receive is akin to racism and due to lack of education they all get stamped as being sexual perverts in much the same way gay people were labelled not so long ago. Nobody is accusing rape victims of being bigots here, that's just you being hyperbolic as usual.

I'm trying to get my head around arguments on both sides and to do that I need to make comparisons and try and see things from both sides of the story, maybe you should try that rather than go at anyone not 100% aligned with your opinion like an attack dog.

---

That's a get out of jail. You compared women not wanting genetically male people in female only situations to racism multiple times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I’m not sure what point you were making then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I'm pointing out that Robison equated changing your legal gender at 16 to getting married, leaving home or voting. You can vote for anyone you like or not vote at all. You can end a marriage and, for most, you can go back home. A GRC is for life and an attempt to abandon your acquired gender could, under the terms of the legislation, make you liable to prosecution. IMHO (and clearly many others) that is a too hefty a responsibility for a 16-year-old, particularly as it has been confirmed you can begin the process of living in your acquired gender at 15. Sure, there will be some for whom such a move will be entirely manageable but who among us didn't see their views, life experience and biology develop between 15 and 18? Is embarking on a change that could potentially lead to irreversible medical intervention really advisable at 15?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

That's a get out of jail. You compared women not wanting genetically male people in female only situations to racism multiple times.

---

I most certainly did not. I won't hold my breath waiting on an apology though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Oh get off your high horse, comparisons are perfectly legitimate when trying to understand a situation, it's how people build opinions.. It doesn't mean I'm equating one to the other. I've worked with trans people and some of the treatment they receive is akin to racism and due to lack of education they all get stamped as being sexual perverts in much the same way gay people were labelled not so long ago. Nobody is accusing rape victims of being bigots here, that's just you being hyperbolic as usual.

I'm trying to get my head around arguments on both sides and to do that I need to make comparisons and try and see things from both sides of the story, maybe you should try that rather than go at anyone not 100% aligned with your opinion like an attack dog.

---

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I don't think anyone is arguing against trans people. The concern is that the new system facilitates predatory men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I don't think anyone is arguing against trans people. The concern is that the new system facilitates predatory men.

---

It's not only that it disregards women's wishes. To say to a disabled woman, what have you got against trans men is brutal imo. The patriarchy has taken over, women need educated in what is right and how they are wrong

It's the 16/17 year old thing that doesn't make much sense as well. Only last year the SNP were kicking up a fuss about the UN Children's Rights and how the evil Tory's blocked it. If that Bill had passed it classed anyone under 18 a child. Named Persons Bill also stated anyone under 18 would need a responsible named person as under 18 you need support and guidance and are vulnerable. Seems a bit odd.

And if the Greens had their way it would be children aged 8 and above who could apply for a GRC.

Discussion of potential legal issues arising around indecent exposure https://musingsofpaul325885992.wordp...posure-part-2/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Oh get off your high horse, comparisons are perfectly legitimate when trying to understand a situation, it's how people build opinions.. It doesn't mean I'm equating one to the other. I've worked with trans people and some of the treatment they receive is akin to racism and due to lack of education they all get stamped as being sexual perverts in much the same way gay people were labelled not so long ago. Nobody is accusing rape victims of being bigots here, that's just you being hyperbolic as usual.

I'm trying to get my head around arguments on both sides and to do that I need to make comparisons and try and see things from both sides of the story, maybe you should try that rather than go at anyone not 100% aligned with your opinion like an attack dog.

---

You should probably go back a dozen or so pages on this thread and absorb the discussion. There's a decent bit of debate and it's gone way beyond the kind of discrimination you describe.

If you want to know who's labelling rape victims as bigots, do some reading. Maybe start here https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...ersy-xdcpfr0cv

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crunchie

We entered that land a long time ago. These clowns in the SG and Sturgeon in particular are leaving one sorry mess for our offspring.

---

Or to put it more bluntly :eek:

Wings Over Scotland | The Disgraces Of Scotland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I don't think anyone is arguing against trans people. The concern is that the new system facilitates predatory men.

---

The fact that the amendment was tabled by the SNP's Michelle Thomson, herself a rape victim, underlines how unbending the SG are in their determination to see this legislation enacted.

I was glad to see that here, at least, Labour voted against the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

You should probably go back a dozen or so pages on this thread and absorb the discussion. There's a decent bit of debate and it's gone way beyond the kind of discrimination you describe.

If you want to know who's labelling rape victims as bigots, do some reading. Maybe start here https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...ersy-xdcpfr0cv

---

For me the suggestion that those opposed to trans women providing intimate care to vulnerable females or support to sexual assault victims are bigots is deliberately misrepresenting the views of a lot of people.

A comparison to racism or even homophobia is wholly inavlid imo. There is no suggestion, at least on my part or the part of anyone on here as far as I can see, that 'all transgender people are sexual predators'. The issue is twofold. Firstly that the legislation leaves open loopholes for predatory men and it isn't for us to dictate to women whether their fears around such issues are founded or not. It's a variation of 'not all men'. Of course a rape victim or a vulnerable person requiring personal care has the option to request a biological female carries out the task but they shouldn't be put in that position, it should be a given, particularly in the case of the former. I'm not a sexual predator, I've got a valid PVG that suggests I am no risk to vulnerable people and a further enhanced Disclosure would back that up. I don't believe someone in a vulnerable or distressful situation not wishing to be in a potentially intimate situation with me is being discriminatory though, they aren't branding me a sexual predator but their own lived experience may put them in a position where they feel safest with someone of the same biological sex as them. That ultimately brings us to the 2nd point, you can't wholly and completely change biological sex. I fully support people's rights to identify as they wish, gender is a broad spectrum, but sex isn't. Someone can use hormone therapy, they can have breast augmentation etc etc but in intimate situations if there is upset or distress caused by someone who was born biologically male, who may still have male sexual organs, then the safeguard should be that such situations are taken off the table and can't happen.

Unfortunately this is an area where there is a crossover between trans rights and women's rights. For me the rights of women, particularly those in a vulnerable or distressing situation, have to win through. Discriminating against trans people in almost every area of life is wrong, it's entirely justifiable to argue they should have the same legal protections as other marginalised groups. However the area around personal care and sexual assault is so loaded (and impacts such a small amount of people) that there absolutely should have been a separate and new legal safeguard specific to this legislation put in place. It's a minority of a minority who would be impacted and it suggests the politics of this has become much like the societal debate, it's wholly ideological and compromise in any form is off the table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

For me the suggestion that those opposed to trans women providing intimate care to vulnerable females or support to sexual assault victims are bigots is deliberately misrepresenting the views of a lot of people.

A comparison to racism or even homophobia is wholly inavlid imo. There is no suggestion, at least on my part or the part of anyone on here as far as I can see, that 'all transgender people are sexual predators'. The issue is twofold. Firstly that the legislation leaves open loopholes for predatory men and it isn't for us to dictate to women whether their fears around such issues are founded or not. It's a variation of 'not all men'. Of course a rape victim or a vulnerable person requiring personal care has the option to request a biological female carries out the task but they shouldn't be put in that position, it should be a given, particularly in the case of the former. I'm not a sexual predator, I've got a valid PVG that suggests I am no risk to vulnerable people and a further enhanced Disclosure would back that up. I don't believe someone in a vulnerable or distressful situation not wishing to be in a potentially intimate situation with me is being discriminatory though, they aren't branding me a sexual predator but their own lived experience may put them in a position where they feel safest with someone of the same biological sex as them. That ultimately brings us to the 2nd point, you can't wholly and completely change biological sex. I fully support people's rights to identify as they wish, gender is a broad spectrum, but sex isn't. Someone can use hormone therapy, they can have breast augmentation etc etc but in intimate situations if there is upset or distress caused by someone who was born biologically male, who may still have male sexual organs, then the safeguard should be that such situations are taken off the table and can't happen.

Unfortunately this is an area where there is a crossover between trans rights and women's rights. For me the rights of women, particularly those in a vulnerable or distressing situation, have to win through. Discriminating against trans people in almost every area of life is wrong, it's entirely justifiable to argue they should have the same legal protections as other marginalised groups. However the area around personal care and sexual assault is so loaded (and impacts such a small amount of people) that there absolutely should have been a separate and new legal safeguard specific to this legislation put in place. It's a minority of a minority who would be impacted and it suggests the politics of this has become much like the societal debate, it's wholly ideological and compromise in any form is off the table.

---

I don't know what the avenues open to legal challenge are, but if the likes of Rowling have anything to do with it the fight to regain lost women's rights will continue to be placed front and centre even when this flawed legislation passes:

Fight isn’t over, Rowling tells feminists holding vigil | Scotland | The Times

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Or to put it more bluntly :eek:

Wings Over Scotland | The Disgraces Of Scotland

---

Funny the amount of amplification "Rev" Campbell is getting from some of those who used to clutch their pearls the most tightly over some of his previous pish. :rolleyes:

(FAOD - don't know if that applies to HH specifically, but it's all over twitter.)