The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

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.)

---

What's your take on the points he made?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

What's your take on the points he made?

---

Campbell or HH? I haven't read the article.

Edit: had a quick look at Wings. Like his stuff about Hillsborourgh and completely losing the plot over Kezia Dugdale, I think it shows him to be somewhat unstable and in need of help, tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

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.)

---

He's definitely the unionist's go to blogger these days. Changed days indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

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.)

---

Bearing in mind he's already had a legal run-in with Kezia Dugdale he may be sailing close to the wind with the 'naming and shaming' of MSPs rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Campbell or HH? I haven't read the article.

Edit: had a quick look at Wings. Like his stuff about Hillsborourgh and completely losing the plot over Kezia Dugdale, I think it shows him to be somewhat unstable and in need of help, tbh.

---

It's a funny one. In 2014 he was absolutely loved by the yes campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

It's a funny one. In 2014 he was absolutely loved by the yes campaign.

---

So was Alex Salmond.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2022...-scotland-act/ Very interesting legal blog on the legislation the interactions with UK Law. In summary - a mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

It's a funny one. In 2014 he was absolutely loved by the yes campaign.

---

I used to like some of his fact checking takedowns then too. But someone (on here, I think) pointed me at his Hillsborough stuff. A real eye opener. The Kezia Dugdale obsession further pointed to the guy being a bit unhinged, frankly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

So was Alex Salmond.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Sure was.

She can't have long in the snp

Joanna Cherry KC
@joannaccherry
I am horrified by the voting down of amendments designed to prevent rapists & violent sex offenders from abusing Self-ID. I will speak at this rally later in support of rebel SNP MSP colleagues. For me this a matter of conscience

I see other countries are going through the same debate


https://amp-rfi-fr.cdn.ampproject.or...s-spanish-left

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

I see other countries are going through the same debate


https://amp-rfi-fr.cdn.ampproject.or...s-spanish-left

---

Of course. Countries need to bring legislation into line with international human rights legislation. That’s the reason Ireland did it and it’s the same for everyone. England won’t be able to avoid it unless they leave more international bodies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

---

As a non female non trans person I'm in no way effected by this debate. It's also highly unlikely that I will be raped by a woman and then offered psychological support from a trans man. For that reason I can only try and understand the fears and anguish on both sides of the debate but in reality there's more than two sides to this debate with different bases of opinion being influenced by their own personal sexuality or even religious beliefs. I get that you will probably disagree with that point because you believe sex to be binary but even the scientific community is divided on that point. I can understand the fear some women will have regarding this legislation but I can also imagine that for transgender people it feels like discrimination.

1273 posts including this one and my first on this topic i think. Is it OK to see both sides and feel conflicted on almost every point raised by both sides? That's where I am. I understand both sides of the argument and I can see both sides cases.
I should also say that it is an incredibly complex matter and I feel that it is a shame that it has become so entrenched between different political groups. There's no doubt that there are some people completely using this for political gain, some personal and some party.

First and last post for me on this topic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weecounty hibby

1273 posts including this one and my first on this topic i think. Is it OK to see both sides and feel conflicted on almost every point raised by both sides? That's where I am. I understand both sides of the argument and I can see both sides cases.

---

I can def see both sides to a point. I think that ideally there could be certain jobs that are not available to trans people but as I understand it, this wouldn’t be compatible with other equality laws out there which is why they are fighting these amendments so hard. It only takes one part of the bill to not be legal for the whole thing to fall apart.
I’m glad sports have been exempted and it’s being left to individual sports authorities.
I think some of the hypotheticals being thrown around have a similar likelihood of happening as Hibs winning the champions league but I can understand some peoples fears. I think it would be better to help people address those fears rather than amplify them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I can def see both sides to a point. I think that ideally there could be certain jobs that are not available to trans people but as I understand it, this wouldn’t be compatible with other equality laws out there which is why they are fighting these amendments so hard. It only takes one part of the bill to not be legal for the whole thing to fall apart.
I’m glad sports have been exempted and it’s being left to individual sports authorities.
I think some of the hypotheticals being thrown around have a similar likelihood of happening as Hibs winning the champions league but I can understand some peoples fears. I think it would be better to help people address those fears rather than amplify them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

How do you address rape victims not wanting male bodied people in their centre, education or saying OK we will exempt that. Same goes for females wanting female bodied care

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.

---

Good post and a fine summary.

The other big issue is the silencing of debate through too readily used accusations of transphobia and the like. We've seen it in a very public way with JK Rowling and the efforts of the likes of Emma Watson to "protect the franchise" and distance themselves from her views.

I was speaking with family last night and I was really concerned when someone said to me that they were afraid to like certain posts on Twitter because they feared that some colleagues would interpret that as transphobic and that their future career in paediatrics would be hindered. Of course they are not Transphobic and have done a lot of thinking about whose rights take precedence. We've seen orgnaisation baulk at

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

How do you address rape victims not wanting male bodied people in their centre, education or saying OK we will exempt that. Same goes for females wanting female bodied care

---

Indeed. 'Addressing those fears' sounds all very well but it's little more than hot air when you're not somebody likely to find yourself in such a distressing situation.

Respectful compromise would have been the way ahead here. A legal distinction between gender identity and biological sex would ensure protection for both women and trans people from discrimination and ensuring the legality of women-only services from the point of view dignity and safety. Sadly our self-styled 'progressive' SG has refused to countenance compromise, leaving women to deal with the consequences.

I wrote to my local Labour MSP on the matter, questioning their support for the bill. I won't paste their entire lengthy reply, but here's a snippet:

'It is not true to say we are blindly supporting this. Our role is to find the compromise which has been sadly lacking from the Scottish Government. While we agree that our gender laws require some reform, they must be based on and not supersede the 2010 Equalities Act.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

Good post and a fine summary.

The other big issue is the silencing of debate through too readily used accusations of transphobia and the like. We've seen it in a very public way with JK Rowling and the efforts of the likes of Emma Watson to "protect the franchise" and distance themselves from her views.

I was speaking with family last night and I was really concerned when someone said to me that they were afraid to like certain posts on Twitter because they feared that some colleagues would interpret that as transphobic and that their future career in paediatrics would be hindered. Of course they are not Transphobic and have done a lot of thinking about whose rights take precedence. We've seen orgnaisation baulk at

---

Of course that works both ways. Even on this thread we see support for the bill characterised as favouring rapists and sex offenders over women.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've posted a fair bit on this and I genuinely believe that posters on all sides mean well. I wonder whether some of the issues might have benefitted from a citizens assembly type approach to work through the issues in a less combative way? Right now it feels really polarised and I think the constitutional overlay is not helping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Of course that works both ways. Even on this thread we see support for the bill characterised as favouring rapists and sex offenders over women.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

It needn't be that polarised and I don't think it is for most people. There are, however, clear flaws in the legislation.

How can it be right, for example, that in future any male will be able to declare they intend to live as the opposite sex despite the SG being unable to define what that means in practice? Furthermore, how can the SG argue on one hand (as they did in court) that a GRC changes not just someone's gender but their sex for the purposes of the Equality Act yet on the other claim this legislation is merely an administrative change which will have no consequences for women's rights?! Just plain nuts.

Just because these consequences are, for now, hypothetical, doesn't make this good law and the SG's tin-eared response to such valid and, in many cases, heartfelt concerns has only stoked further division.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I've posted a fair bit on this and I genuinely believe that posters on all sides mean well. I wonder whether some of the issues might have benefitted from a citizens assembly type approach to work through the issues in a less combative way? Right now it feels really polarised and I think the constitutional overlay is not helping.

---

:agree:

Couldn't agree more.

I think the concerns around the lack of safeguarding and the wooliness of definitions are real and need addressed and sadly this doesn't seem to be happening.

But I also think that some people don't get that trans people just want to be full members of society. Not just a tolerated group of 2nd class citizens in the way gay people used to be when they weren't allowed to get married, have a family or their sexuality was unmentionable in classrooms.

And the people who are using it as an anti-Indy wedge issue are just contemptible, imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

:agree:

Couldn't agree more.

I think the concerns around the lack of safeguarding and the wooliness of definitions are real and need addressed and sadly this doesn't seem to be happening.

But I also think that some people don't get that trans people just want to be full members of society. Not just a tolerated group of 2nd class citizens in the way gay people used to be when they weren't allowed to get married, have a family or their sexuality was unmentionable in classrooms.

And the people who are using it as an anti-Indy wedge issue are just contemptible, imo.

---

On your last point, I think there is maybe a discussion for another time about the politics of this. The SG is usually pretty sure footed on these public facing matters. But they have got themselves into a right mess and walked into a trap with the sex offenders stuff. TBH I can't see what this is achieving for longer term goals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

On your last point, I think there is maybe a discussion for another time about the politics of this. The SG is usually pretty sure footed on these publioc facing matters. But they have got themselves into a right mess and walked into a trap with the sex offenders stuff. TBH I can't see what this is achieving for longer term goals.

---

Sometimes longer term goals don’t come into it. If you believe it’s the right thing to do and it keeps you in line with international best practise then that can be enough. It’s should have zero to do with Indy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The wooliness is definitely a significant concern. It looks a little like "feeling like a particular gender" are the thing that is what matters here. I have to be honest, what does that actually mean?

Identifying as a woman is a phrase many women are not happy with. They say they don't identify as women, they are women.

If we are men, what is it that makes us men and different to women? How would a woman know what that feels like?

Are we in the territory of looking at a concept of gendered souls? What shared experiences do those who identify as women have with those born female? Can anyone explain in terms that don't resort to stereotypical social conformities like clothing, interests etc.

I'd really be interested to hear what people feel it is to be their "gender".

The other aspect of this is, as someone touched on, the ability to monitor for key discriminations and health issues related to biologically sex. The meaningful nature of information about a person in planning for medical needs for example.

Equality in employment, pay differential between the sexes - all at risk of becoming harder to track.


Growing up we didn't have the same emphasis on identity as we do now. Terry Halls passing brought that to mind. Looking back to the music of his career heights, the big political messages were class orientated, poverty fighting. UB40 Signing Off, Specials Ghost Town, A Town Called Malice...
I think it's suiting some interested parties to have society tangled up in identity wars...it keeps prying eyes from other things. Maybe both sides of this debate have been lured into spending energies on this deliberately. Social media aiding and abetting along the way...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LewysGot2

The wooliness is definitely a significant concern. It looks a little like "feeling like a particular gender" are the thing that is what matters here. I have to be honest, what does that actually mean?

Identifying as a woman is a phrase many women are not happy with. They say they don't identify as women, they are women.

If we are men, what is it that makes us men and different to women? How would a woman know what that feels like?

Are we in the territory of looking at a concept of gendered souls? What shared experiences do those who identify as women have with those born female? Can anyone explain in terms that don't resort to stereotypical social conformities like clothing, interests etc.

I'd really be interested to hear what people feel it is to be their "gender".

The other aspect of this is, as someone touched on, the ability to monitor for key discriminations and health issues related to biologically sex. The meaningful nature of information about a person in planning for medical needs for example.

Equality in employment, pay differential between the sexes - all at risk of becoming harder to track.


Growing up we didn't have the same emphasis on identity as we do now. Terry Halls passing brought that to mind. Looking back to the music of his career heights, the big political messages were class orientated, poverty fighting. UB40 Signing Off, Specials Ghost Town, A Town Called Malice...
I think it's suiting some interested parties to have society tangled up in identity wars...it keeps prying eyes from other things. Maybe both sides of this debate have been lured into spending energies on this deliberately. Social media aiding and abetting along the way...

---

I think there's a lot in what you say. How to be radical and progressive without actually changing anything and with no consequence for proponents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Of course that works both ways. Even on this thread we see support for the bill characterised as favouring rapists and sex offenders over women.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

That's a tad simplistic and you know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Sometimes longer term goals don’t come into it. If you believe it’s the right thing to do and it keeps you in line with international best practise then that can be enough. It’s should have zero to do with Indy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Where would we find an example of 'international best practice' in this area? The battle lines which have been drawn in Scotland indicate we're a long way from that, while polling in Ireland doesn't seem to indicate approval for their adopted measures:

Irish Public Have Say in First Irish Gender Poll - The Countess

I'm not familiar with the pollster so I have no doubt you'll find a way to discredit them :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Where would we find an example of 'international best practice' in this area? The battle lines which have been drawn in Scotland indicate we're a long way from that, while polling in Ireland doesn't seem to indicate approval for their adopted measures:

Irish Public Have Say in First Irish Gender Poll - The Countess

I'm not familiar with the pollster so I have no doubt you'll find a way to discredit them :wink:

---

Is success based on it popularity?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another angle on this, particularly for teenagers, especially girls, is we've had a decade of support for young people to love the skin they're in - whether they be overweight,underweight, of a particular hair or skin colour or body shape. To learn to love themselves for who they are...a bit at odds with a narrative they could be born in the wrong body?

Anorexia is reducing in teenage girls which is good news but it's coincided with a increase in teenage girls identifying out of their natal sex. Body image and dealing with the trials of puberty at play?