The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

What was questionable in the consultation process.

We've been at this for 6 long years. How much longer should we take to pass legislation?

---

The speakers were unbelievably weighted towards pro gra, there were a number of rape victims for example that complained they didn't get a voice. There was articles previously on the thread about this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

The speakers were unbelievably weighted towards pro gra, there were a number of rape victims for example that complained they didn't get a voice. There was articles previously on the thread about this

---

Also earlier in the thread, not every individual was going to get in front of a committee, although those of all sides of the process have had a fair crack at the whip to put their case.

MSPs from all parties will vote this legislation through this afternoon.

They've all had ample time to get their points across.

It's clear that the Bill will pass. The Lib Dems have indicated they will support. Well that's that. But not really. I know there are some on here who hope the issue will quietly die down. I just don't see that happening. This is for a number of reasons:
- the interaction with UK Equalities legislation may well lead to inteventions from UKG
- the Haldane judgement appears to mean that the changes are not the 'administrative change' that has been suggested
- there are likely appeals to ECHR
- and both sides will be spoiling for a legal fight on access to single sex spaces.

And that's just the legal side. The politics of it I find hard to grasp. It's possible that SG considered that this would show Scotland as a beacon of enlightenment. That could very well be unravelling as there is is an international shift on these issues. It has split the government and led to ministerial sackings. It has made the Parliament look rediculous with frantic late night sittings. It has painted the SG as uncaring about the interests of a large number of people. And in painting itself into a corner on the Bill, it has meant that issues like the sex offenders amendments will be thrown against it. Think how effective the use of the term 'rape clause' in relation to benefits has been. I have no doubt some Tory strategist will be looking to pin 'rights for rapists' to SG. And if UKG does intervene, they will likely get more support here than would be normal. Then there is the Greens. They have already said it doesn't go far enough. They have argued for children to be able to get a certificate and to get rid of the reflection period. Will they try to bring that back? As they have previously said, it was a key part of the Bute House agreement.

And finally, SG and the MSPs supporting this have given opponents an enormous stick to be beaten with. Whenever there is a horrible case that can be linked to the legislation, their support for the legislation will be brought up. Again and again and again. Would that behaviour be cynical? Welcome to politics.

So we wait to see what happens next. But after all the thud and blunder, I'm still left with the question - why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Also earlier in the thread, not every individual was going to get in front of a committee, although those of all sides of the process have had a fair crack at the whip to put their case.

MSPs from all parties will vote this legislation through this afternoon.

They've all had ample time to get their points across.

---

Says impartial you, I bow down to the women who say they have had no voice.

Patriarchy does know best though to be fair

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Says impartial you, I bow down to the women who say they have had no voice.

Patriarchy does know best though to be fair

---

Lol

Women had their voices raised loud and clear yesterday during the debate. Did you miss them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Lol

Women had their voices raised loud and clear yesterday during the debate. Did you miss them?

---

Yeah but the majority of one's with a differing opinion were speaking at the rally outside Parliament

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Yeah but the majority of one's with a differing opinion were speaking at the rally outside Parliament

---

As is their right.

Their Champions were inside parliament arguing their case, with other women arguing against them.

Good evidence based piece on how gra changes really do effect single sex spaces

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org...scotland-bill/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

It's clear that the Bill will pass. The Lib Dems have indicated they will support. Well that's that. But not really. I know there are some on here who hope the issue will quietly die down. I just don't see that happening. This is for a number of reasons:
- the interaction with UK Equalities legislation may well lead to inteventions from UKG
- the Haldane judgement appears to mean that the changes are not the 'administrative change' that has been suggested
- there are likely appeals to ECHR
- and both sides will be spoiling for a legal fight on access to single sex spaces.

And that's just the legal side. The politics of it I find hard to grasp. It's possible that SG considered that this would show Scotland as a beacon of enlightenment. That could very well be unravelling as there is is an international shift on these issues. It has split the government and led to ministerial sackings. It has made the Parliament look rediculous with frantic late night sittings. It has painted the SG as uncaring about the interests of a large number of people. And in painting itself into a corner on the Bill, it has meant that issues like the sex offenders amendments will be thrown against it. Think how effective the use of the term 'rape clause' in relation to benefits has been. I have no doubt some Tory strategist will be looking to pin 'rights for rapists' to SG. And if UKG does intervene, they will likely get more support here than would be normal. Then there is the Greens. They have already said it doesn't go far enough. They have argued for children to be able to get a certificate and to get rid of the reflection period. Will they try to bring that back? As they have previously said, it was a key part of the Bute House agreement.

And finally, SG and the MSPs supporting this have given opponents an enormous stick to be beaten with. Whenever there is a horrible case that can be linked to the legislation, their support for the legislation will be brought up. Again and again and again. Would that behaviour be cynical? Welcome to politics.

So we wait to see what happens next. But after all the thud and blunder, I'm still left with the question - why?

---

Headcase Maggie Chapman of the greens want it to be lowered to 6 year old. I remember for about 2 months my bairn wanted to be a puppy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I’ll be glad today once it’s all over. It will be forgotten about very quickly when 99.9999% of people realise that nothing has actually changed in their life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Patrick Harvie saying this is just the start, more radical reforms to come. It's not going away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Lol

Women had their voices raised loud and clear yesterday during the debate. Did you miss them?

---

And they got thrown out!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Says impartial you, I bow down to the women who say they have had no voice.

Patriarchy does know best though to be fair

---

"Patriarchy"?

Which brave misogynist do you think is pulling Nicola Sturgeon's strings?

Most of the key contributions on either side have been from women. Whatever you think of the bill, the charge that it's men ordering women around doesn't really stack up at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

It's clear that the Bill will pass. The Lib Dems have indicated they will support. Well that's that. But not really. I know there are some on here who hope the issue will quietly die down. I just don't see that happening. This is for a number of reasons:
- the interaction with UK Equalities legislation may well lead to inteventions from UKG
- the Haldane judgement appears to mean that the changes are not the 'administrative change' that has been suggested
- there are likely appeals to ECHR
- and both sides will be spoiling for a legal fight on access to single sex spaces.

And that's just the legal side. The politics of it I find hard to grasp. It's possible that SG considered that this would show Scotland as a beacon of enlightenment. That could very well be unravelling as there is is an international shift on these issues. It has split the government and led to ministerial sackings. It has made the Parliament look rediculous with frantic late night sittings. It has painted the SG as uncaring about the interests of a large number of people. And in painting itself into a corner on the Bill, it has meant that issues like the sex offenders amendments will be thrown against it. Think how effective the use of the term 'rape clause' in relation to benefits has been. I have no doubt some Tory strategist will be looking to pin 'rights for rapists' to SG. And if UKG does intervene, they will likely get more support here than would be normal. Then there is the Greens. They have already said it doesn't go far enough. They have argued for children to be able to get a certificate and to get rid of the reflection period. Will they try to bring that back? As they have previously said, it was a key part of the Bute House agreement.

And finally, SG and the MSPs supporting this have given opponents an enormous stick to be beaten with. Whenever there is a horrible case that can be linked to the legislation, their support for the legislation will be brought up. Again and again and again. Would that behaviour be cynical? Welcome to politics.

So we wait to see what happens next. But after all the thud and blunder, I'm still left with the question - why?

---

This is just a guess, but I think it's NS and allies' personal loyalty to a bunch of younger staffers/activists that have come through the YSI etc. They're all very committed to the equality/woke* agenda.

* delete to taste.

Interested to what more seasoned observers of this think of amendment 40? It would appear to be a genuine bit of cross party co-operation between Jamie Greene (the least objectionable Tory I can think of to be fair) and Gillian Martin of the SNP.

It allows the police to block a GRC application if the applicant is subject to a sexual harm prevention order (inc interim) or sexual offences prevention order (inc interim). Martin claims its effect will be the same as Michelle Thomson and Russell Findlay's rejected amendments but is in full compliance with the EHRC, which the SG claimed theirs weren't. It passed by 121 votes to 0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The EA works both ways. It allows organisations to prevent access by anyone, if the owners or members of that space deem that appropriate.

Only last week, I was in what is normally a female-only space. The members allowed me in. Had they refused, I would have had no recourse, even if I'd had a GRC. The EA trumps that.

The reformed GRA doesn't change that. The challenge,however, was highlighted in the debate last night by a Labour MSP (can't remember their name). They asked that guidance be given to all affected organisations (such as Health Boards)to clarify how to apply both the EA and GRA. I don't think that's an unreasonable request,and IMO should be dealt with before the reformed GRA comes into force.

---

Think this is who you were referring to.


For Scottish Labour, Pam Duncan-Glancy says the bill is an opportunity to improve lives and tackle inequality.

She says trans people should be recognised for who they are, and the current process needs reform.

"For society to accept them and support them to be their best self without barriers, additional costs or medicalisation," she adds.

Ms Duncan-Glancy says reform of the current "onorous" and "out of touch" system is long overdue.

She says a failure to act has allowed fear and ignorance to prosper - and "a debate that has framed the rights of trans people as a threat to the rights of women, and created a toxic environment that has let down both causes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

"Patriarchy"?

Which brave mysoginist do you think is pulling Nicola Sturgeon's strings?

Most of the key contributions on either side have been from women. Whatever you think of the bill, the charge that it's men ordering women around doesn't really stack up at all.

---

NS is a figure head snp is a machine. Patriarchy isn't fair because a lot of the lobbying has been done by trans women who aren't men.

I also wasn't talking about NS I was referring to one of the many men on the thread, that says it doesn't effect me but here's what is correct

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Interested to what more seasoned observers of this think of amendment 40? It would appear to be a genuine bit of cross party co-operation between Jamie Greene (the least objectionable Tory I can think of to be fair) and Gillian Martin of the SNP.

It allows the police to block a GRC application if the applicant is subject to a sexual harm prevention order (inc interim) or sexual offences prevention order (inc interim). Martin claims its effect will be the same as Michelle Thomson and Russell Findlay's rejected amendments but is in full compliance with the EHRC, which the SG claimed theirs weren't. It passed by 121 votes to 0.

---

That sounds reasonable IMO. It does the job many were calling for, and spikes the political guns of those who were firing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Interested to what more seasoned observers of this think of amendment 40? It would appear to be a genuine bit of cross party co-operation between Jamie Greene (the least objectionable Tory I can think of to be fair) and Gillian Martin of the SNP.

It allows the police to block a GRC application if the applicant is subject to a sexual harm prevention order (inc interim) or sexual offences prevention order (inc interim). Martin claims its effect will be the same as Michelle Thomson and Russell Findlay's rejected amendments but is in full compliance with the EHRC, which the SG claimed theirs weren't. It passed by 121 votes to 0.

---

Sounds like a very reasonable compromise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Think this is who you were referring to.


For Scottish Labour, Pam Duncan-Glancy says the bill is an opportunity to improve lives and tackle inequality.

She says trans people should be recognised for who they are, and the current process needs reform.

"For society to accept them and support them to be their best self without barriers, additional costs or medicalisation," she adds.

Ms Duncan-Glancy says reform of the current "onorous" and "out of touch" system is long overdue.

She says a failure to act has allowed fear and ignorance to prosper - and "a debate that has framed the rights of trans people as a threat to the rights of women, and created a toxic environment that has let down both causes

---

It was actually Pauline McNeill I saw, but thanks :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

And they got thrown out!

---

Funny that. I thought I sat and watched them on parliament tv put their points across very well.

Those champions of women's causes like Tess White, and Rachel Hamilton.

Greenes ammendment is for clearly fraudulent cases how do you define that. All people accused of sexual offenses should simply instantly have claim paused. It's baffling anyone would defend those who voted against

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That sounds reasonable IMO. It does the job many were calling for, and spikes the political guns of those who were firing them.

---

Spiking the guns is what it's meant to do. But why is there an objection to doing it automatically for people who are accused of sexual offences? People who are accused of offences can have lots of restrictions put on them. They can even be held on remand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

NS is a figure head snp is a machine. Patriarchy isn't fair because a lot of the lobbying has been done by trans women who aren't men.

I also wasn't talking about NS I was referring to one of the many men on the thread, that says it doesn't effect me but here's what is correct

---

Your patriarchy comment was aimed at me for daring to have an opinion on an act of parliament discussed by mainly women imo.

How do you know it won't affect our hasn't affected me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Your patriarchy comment was aimed at me for daring to have an opinion on an act of parliament discussed by mainly women imo.

How do you know it won't affect our hasn't affected me?

---

Because you said previously it doesn't affect you and your not not really in one camp or the other

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Greenes ammendment is for clearly fraudulent cases how do you define that. All people accused of sexual offenses should simply instantly have claim paused. It's baffling anyone would defend those who voted against

---

This is in the Express, and backed up by the Guardian:-

Ministers accepted a cross-party amendment from the SNP’s Gillian Martin and Scottish Conservative MSP Jamie Greene that would mean anyone convicted of a sexual offence who wants to apply for a certificate will need to be fully risk-assessed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Spiking the guns is what it's meant to do. But why is there an objection to doing it automatically for people who are accused of sexual offences? People who are accused of offences can have lots of restrictions put on them. They can even be held on remand.

---

AIUI, that amendment didn't comply with the ECHR.

Not sure why the passed one does and that one doesn't, so don't ask me :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Because you said previously it doesn't affect you and your not not really in one camp or the other

---

"Said previously"

Listened to the debate then came to a conclusion.

At no time though have I ever spoke against either women's or trans rights.

Patriarchy though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This is in the Express, and backed up by the Guardian:-

Ministers accepted a cross-party amendment from the SNP’s Gillian Martin and Scottish Conservative MSP Jamie Greene that would mean anyone convicted of a sexual offence who wants to apply for a certificate will need to be fully risk-assessed.

---

That's conviction. One of the voted down ammendments was accused. Plus in a previous article the police union said they didn't want anything to do with it as its a minefield for them. Why would it not just be an automatic ban

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Spiking the guns is what it's meant to do. But why is there an objection to doing it automatically for people who are accused of sexual offences? People who are accused of offences can have lots of restrictions put on them. They can even be held on remand.

---

I don't know. IANAL and I haven't found anything to explain what the purported incompatibilites with Equality legislation actually are. :dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

That's conviction. One of the voted down ammendments was accused. Plus in a previous article the police union said they didn't want anything to do with it as its a minefield for them. Why would it not just be an automatic ban

---

The ECHR, presumably.