Maggie Chapman was talking about non-binary, which is a gender issue. Here's a useful starting point:-Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_recognition_of_non-binary_gender
Printable View
Maggie Chapman was talking about non-binary, which is a gender issue. Here's a useful starting point:-Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_recognition_of_non-binary_gender
It's called non-binary in most Western countries. Other cultures have different names.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
On official documents, it could be many things, depending on the jurisdiction. The US, I believe, uses X instead of M or F on its passports.
Chapman want kids over 6 to change sex without a reflection period. A headcase who can thank the wee man that she gets a big msp wageQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It's about mens attitude to women, especially "white van men" and the like. We've all seen and heard them.
They're the ones who go on to perpetrate violence towards women. If any of them obtain access to womens spaces as a result of this bill and commit crime it's a man doing it. It's nothing to do with transgender individuals.
Furthermore, the liklihood of it happening is infinitesimal according to stats from Ireland, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland where this legislation already exists.
Or are we saying that our men have worse attitudes towards females than those in other countries and can't be trusted?
Well, that's the main problem then, isn't it!
Danke :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It's really no about that. It's about a dozen other instances and women's rights and wishes that are being eroded. Sexual assault is simplistic for a complex set of issuesQuote:
Originally Posted by heretoday
Kirsty Blackman has said that where there is a requirement for 50/50 male/female split on a board that it's fine if the female portion is made up of trans women.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Is it a gender issue? Isn't part of this mess the conflation of gender and sex? My (admittedly limited) understanding of intersex people was that they had dominant characteristics of one sex. But happy to be put right. In addition, if this is a physical condition, then how would self ID come in to play?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
White van men are violent towards women 😂 what absolute tosh.Quote:
Originally Posted by heretoday
Give us a shout the first time it happens.[emoji106]Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
She was talking about non-binary in the clip I saw, not intersex. AIUI, the latter is a self-identified state, the latter physical.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
So someone can be intersex physically, but identify as any gender, or even fluid.
Are you happy with the fact it can happen. You've already dismissed disabled females wish to have genetically female only careQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
How would we know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Of course we can't there will be no statistics on anything, the same as in Ireland as its a female. If a trans women rapes a female it will be a female on female crime for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
The point is we won't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Will it? As the law stands today I don't think a woman can commit rape. How would it be recorded? (No idea)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Maybe I have and so fair enough.👍Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
I would assume that .net is a predominantly male orientated forum, hence the majority of the posts from men.
Can a woman not rape another woman?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by J-C
https://www.blmsolicitors.co.uk/2021...an-rape-a-man/
"I must admit that I am not really sure if this counts as a ‘legal curiosity’ but in the UK a woman cannot rape a man, or another woman, as a matter of law. That is because of the terms in which the Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines the act of rape. Essentially women don’t have the necessary ‘bits’ to commit the offence! Put more pompously, the 2003 Act makes penile penetration the main element of the offence. Legal academics describe this approach as being ‘phallo-centric’, because only biological men can commit the offence, in law, whether their victims be male or female."
I just wonder how the offence would be recorded if the person has a GRC saying they are female.
If a 16 year old girl is at school, an all girls school, and changes gender to male does that mean she would have to leave school?
Or could a 16 year old male change gender and join an all girls school?
Given it's a criminal offence to reveal if someone has a GRC I suspect no one will be raising it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
And presumably the same for the male portion, it's equality after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
That's like saying white lives matter too. There is protections introduced because a traditional massive under representation of women. Its only one side that needs protectedQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Are you saying that equality only works one way? Does a trans man not need protection? I'll need to read the legislation properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
What are you on about ha. Biological females are the only places needing protected as they are underrepresented. Saying why doesn't equality work two ways, is like the people who complain about black protected spaces in American sports, not going both waysQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Check the title of the thread. This is trans rights, and trans men face the same discrimination as trans women.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
If you're at the ham fair play you got me if not jeezQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...lation-3964807
I think this is just posturing and Sunak will forget all about this in a couple of days but you never know, he might be daft enough to do it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Think it would be bad for independence. Most people are against gra reforms, some deeply so. It won't gain many voters that are already won after supreme Court decision, much more likely to lose peopleQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
You keep thinking this will disappear in a few days, it won't. This will have long term implications and will be high profile for some time yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Why would Sunak be daft to look at the Bill and consider it's implications for women's and girl's safety across the UK, that's his job isn't it? If the legislation is in conflict to existing legislation he can't just ignore it, the Scottish Parliament should understand the legislation it is passing and if it is legal or not. If it has passed illegal legislation that's the fault of the Scottish Parliament.
Let me guess though you think Sunak challenging it will only boost the case for Independence? I think we have been there before and it never does. Not forgetting of course many parts of the Bill were deeply unpopular with the general public and indeed a majority of SNP voters were against many of the more controversial changes so may actually welcome his challenge on some aspects of it.