The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

On this thread, or in the wider population?

---

I think both. That’s my opinion though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I think both. That’s my opinion though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Ta.

There's definitely a discussion to be had, on another thread, on the extent to which people's opinions on discrete issues are affected by their party allegiances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neil7908

I've struggled with this debate as a man but have spoken with my (female) partner and other female friends/family who I trust to be honest with me on delicate issues like this.

Not a single one suggested this was anywhere near the top of their list in terms of their safety. The overwhelming response was concern around rampant misogyny across society, rape culture and the shockingly low conviction rate for sexual assault.

Whilst its positive to see so many men on here expressing concerns around women's safety, I look around this site and see very few other threads on this topic. I hope all the energy from this discussion will continue and we'll see all those strongly opposed to the legislation continue to champion women's rights etc going forward.

---

:agree: good post

I note Angus Robertson has made a rather inane comparison between the passing of last week's vote and the liberation of Nelson Mandela.

Rather undermines Sturgeon's continued insistence that the legislation will be 'merely administrative' in terms of its impact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

I note Angus Robertson has made a rather inane comparison between the passing of last week's vote and the liberation of Nelson Mandela.

Rather undermines Sturgeon's continued insistence that the legislation will be 'merely administrative' in terms of its impact.

---

Here's the actual piece. There is nothing in there about Mandela's liberation.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...ertson-3965083

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Here's the actual piece. There is nothing in there about Mandela's liberation.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/scotlands-gender-recognition-reform-bill-will-advance-rights-in-keeping-with-nelson-mandelas-wise-words-angus-robertson-3965083

---

Uh huh.

Liberation, apartheid fight...call it what you will but there's no doubt what he's trying to do by invoking Mandela's name in such an inappropriate context. As Johann Lamont puts it, the pomposity is risible:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JohannLamont

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Uh huh.

Liberation, apartheid fight...call it what you will but there's no doubt what he's trying to do by invoking Mandela's name in such an inappropriate context. As Johann Lamont puts it, the pomposity is risible:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JohannLamont

---

He didn't mention his liberation, which is what you claimed, or even apartheid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

He didn't mention his liberation, which is what you claimed.

---

He didn't have to. The link he's trying to make is obvious.

Mind you, it probably doesn't quite trump Megan Markle's fatuous claim that a South African perfomer in the Lion King told her that his country celebrated her wedding in the way they did Mandela's release.

HH, in the space of a few hours you've said the bill was driven through by Nicola Sturgeon (yet had wide cross-party backing) and referenced Johann Lamont. You're having a nightmare, chief!

P.S. other than that I still don't have a view on the actual issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

He didn't mention his liberation, which is what you claimed, or even apartheid.

---

He is obviously linking the GRA vote to Nelson Mandela. He was roundly laughed at and ridiculed for doing so, so really just made himself look like a fool.

My wife works as a bra fitter at M&S Kinnaird, if any trans gender come in they cannot refuse them the right to use the changing rooms. She's helped trans men with bra fitting and gets compliments on her compassion while doing her job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Ta.

There's definitely a discussion to be had, on another thread, on the extent to which people's opinions on discrete issues are affected by their party allegiances.

---

I think there are around 4 groups involved in this:

1. Those who believe trans-men/women are men/women and therefore should logically have all the same rights as that-sex-at-birth men/women.

2. Those who don't really believe (1) but would like to live and let live to a varying degree.

3. Those who don't believe (1), think it's all nonsense and any and all trans rights should be resisted.

4. Those who don't actually gaf either way but are delighted it's caused a fracture in the Scottish Yes movement and progressive parties in other places and will do or say anything to stoke that division.


To roughly put them into political parties: Lib Dems and Greens are mostly 1, SNP and Lab are a mix of 1 and 2, Alba are 3 and Tories are mostly a mix of 3 and 4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

I think there are around 4 groups involved in this:

1. Those who believe trans-men/women are men/women and therefore should logically have all the same rights as that-sex-at-birth men/women.

2. Those who don't really believe (1) but would like to live and let live to a varying degree.

3. Those who don't believe (1), think it's all nonsense and any and all trans rights should be resisted.

4. Those who don't actually gaf either way but are delighted it's caused a fracture in the Scottish Yes movement and progressive parties in other places and will do or say anything to stoke that division.


To roughly put them into political parties: Lib Dems and Greens are mostly 1, SNP and Lab are a mix of 1 and 2, Alba are 3 and Tories are mostly a mix of 3 and 4.

---

I’d say I’m between 1 and 2 but closer to 2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neil7908

I've struggled with this debate as a man but have spoken with my (female) partner and other female friends/family who I trust to be honest with me on delicate issues like this.

Not a single one suggested this was anywhere near the top of their list in terms of their safety. The overwhelming response was concern around rampant misogyny across society, rape culture and the shockingly low conviction rate for sexual assault.

Whilst its positive to see so many men on here expressing concerns around women's safety, I look around this site and see very few other threads on this topic. I hope all the energy from this discussion will continue and we'll see all those strongly opposed to the legislation continue to champion women's rights etc going forward.

---

I was chatting to my wife about this the other day. I even painted the very unlikely picture of her in a swimming pool changing room and a trans woman there with her with her wang out.

She wasn’t phased. Said it would be no different to any woman or girl in her changing room.

She is a teacher and has seen first hand the struggle trans kids go through. Kids who have and do not have their parents support.

Kids whose parents are onside and those who will not let the school call a girl by her new female name and insist teachers dead name her.

I think seeing trans people first hand certainly gives empathy and support to their cause, without diminishing one iota woman’s rights.

J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I’d say I’m between 1 and 2 but closer to 2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Ditto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glory Lurker

HH, in the space of a few hours you've said the bill was driven through by Nicola Sturgeon (yet had wide cross-party backing) and referenced Johann Lamont. You're having a nightmare, chief!

P.S. other than that I still don't have a view on the actual issue.

---

I don't get your point.

Sturgeon has most certainly been a relentless driving force for this legislation, turning a deaf ear to even the most reasoned concerns around its impact on women's and children's rights. Lamont is no longer an MSP and hence had no direct input to the vote. She is, however, a high-profile feminist and one of the bill's fiercest critics. Where's the problem in me referencing both?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

I don't get your point.

Sturgeon has most certainly been a relentless driving force for this legislation, turning a deaf ear to even the most reasoned concerns around its impact on women's and children's rights. Lamont is no longer an MSP and hence had no direct input to the vote. She is, however, a high-profile feminist and one of the bill's fiercest critics. Where's the problem in me referencing both?

---

I shouldn't have, but I weakly couldn't resist pointing out that factually it wasn't driven through by NS, plus you referenced Lamont - if she said Sauzee was great, I'd worry I didn't know anything about football.

Sorry! All in all though it was meant tongue in cheek. I shouldn't have waded in when I've not got a view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

I think there are around 4 groups involved in this:

1. Those who believe trans-men/women are men/women and therefore should logically have all the same rights as that-sex-at-birth men/women.

2. Those who don't really believe (1) but would like to live and let live to a varying degree.

3. Those who don't believe (1), think it's all nonsense and any and all trans rights should be resisted.

4. Those who don't actually gaf either way but are delighted it's caused a fracture in the Scottish Yes movement and progressive parties in other places and will do or say anything to stoke that division.


To roughly put them into political parties: Lib Dems and Greens are mostly 1, SNP and Lab are a mix of 1 and 2, Alba are 3 and Tories are mostly a mix of 3 and 4.

---

I'm a hard 2. The problem is there is a lot of room for disagreement here. "Live and let live" doesn't really cover giving life changing medication to kids because they believe something demonstrably untrue about thier bodies. But then again, we let kids go without blood transfusions because of religious nonsense, so I'm generally uncomfortable at the point where the rubber meets the road between belief and medical reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

I think there are around 4 groups involved in this:

1. Those who believe trans-men/women are men/women and therefore should logically have all the same rights as that-sex-at-birth men/women.

2. Those who don't really believe (1) but would like to live and let live to a varying degree.

3. Those who don't believe (1), think it's all nonsense and any and all trans rights should be resisted.

4. Those who don't actually gaf either way but are delighted it's caused a fracture in the Scottish Yes movement and progressive parties in other places and will do or say anything to stoke that division.


To roughly put them into political parties: Lib Dems and Greens are mostly 1, SNP and Lab are a mix of 1 and 2, Alba are 3 and Tories are mostly a mix of 3 and 4.

---

Are you basing that categorisation on how the parties voted last week? If so it would have been interesting to have seen how a free vote for SNP and Labour MPs impacted on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bristolhibby

I was chatting to my wife about this the other day. I even painted the very unlikely picture of her in a swimming pool changing room and a trans woman there with her with her wang out.

She wasn’t phased. Said it would be no different to any woman or girl in her changing room.

She is a teacher and has seen first hand the struggle trans kids go through. Kids who have and do not have their parents support.

Kids whose parents are onside and those who will not let the school call a girl by her new female name and insist teachers dead name her.

I think seeing trans people first hand certainly gives empathy and support to their cause, without diminishing one iota woman’s rights.

J

---

Now I may have misunderstood but the issue around safe guarding seems to be how can any female bodied person challenge any male bodied person in a single sex space if the line is blurred - and what impact might that have on women who, for different but valid reason in equality law - might have their need for truly single sex spaces to change in or exercise in taken away? Like women of particular faith groups.

Sure there was quite a stooshie in London over trans women using a single sex pool for much these reasons. There's definitely intersects where rights seem to clash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LewysGot2

Now I may have misunderstood but the issue around safe guarding seems to be how can any female bodied person challenge any male bodied person in a single sex space if the line is blurred - and what impact might that have on women who, for different but valid reason in equality law - might have their need for truly single sex spaces to change in or exercise in taken away? Like women of particular faith groups.

Sure there was quite a stooshie in London over trans women using a single sex pool for much these reasons. There's definitely intersects where rights seem to clash.

---

In Scotland there will be no such thing as 'single sex'. In relation to the concerns you mention, the biological concept of womanhood has been done away with and any man who says they are a woman for the purposes of acquiring a GRC will literally become one. We're living in the land of make believe.

The World Boxing Council, have said they will never allow a transgender born male fight a woman born female. A common sense approach to keep woman safe and encourage more females to take up the sport. There are areas in sport like boxing where trans rights are in direct conflict with the reality of biological sex. If a man can become a woman just by stating he's a woman, the transwomen are women mantra, then woman's sport is finished as a fair competition. It also seems to be the reason why a lot of misogynist men have jumped on the trans rights bandwagon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

The World Boxing Council, have said they will never allow a transgender born male fight a woman born female. A common sense approach to keep woman safe and encourage more females to take up the sport. There are areas in sport like boxing where trans rights are in direct conflict with the reality of biological sex. If a man can become a woman just by stating he's a woman, the transwomen are women mantra, then woman's sport is finished as a fair competition. It also seems to be the reason why a lot of misogynist men have jumped on the trans rights bandwagon.

---

Sport thankfully seems to be one area where a semblance of common sense prevails because as you say women's sport is otherwise finished. The worry in Scotland must be that the Court of Session ruling that a GRC changes not only your legal gender but your sex opens up women's sport here to anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Sport thankfully seems to be one area where a semblance of common sense prevails because as you say women's sport is otherwise finished. The worry in Scotland must be that the Court of Session ruling that a GRC changes not only your legal gender but your sex opens up women's sport here to anyone.

---

GRA specifically excludes sport. It’s a matter for governing bodies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

GRA specifically excludes sport. It’s a matter for governing bodies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Yes, but in light of the bewildering Court of Session ruling I'm not sure how robust that clause would prove in the event of a legal challenge. If a GRC is now deemed to have changed your biological sex as well as your gender then there's no dividing line. Underlines the absurdity of this legalisation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Yes, but in light of the bewildering Court of Session ruling I'm not sure how robust that clause would prove in the event of a legal challenge. If a GRC is now deemed to have changed your biological sex as well as your gender then there's no dividing line. Underlines the absurdity of this legalisation.

---

If it becomes a problem we can change the law. Right now it specifically excludes sport.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

GRA specifically excludes sport. It’s a matter for governing bodies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

The governing bodies allowed Lia Thomas who was ranked 462 in the male category to compete against woman and become number 1 female swimmer after identifying as a woman for only one year. This could be the end of female sport.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9SSh4D-nkQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

The governing bodies allowed Lia Thomas who was ranked 462 in the male category to compete against woman and become number 1 female swimmer after identifying as a woman for only one year. This could be the end of female sport.

---

Hyperbolise much? :greengrin

https://www.foxsports.com.au/boxing/...3e375d43e95e85

Yes I am posting a link from Wings and will take the flak for that, but ignore for a minute who it's from and read what's coming next in the SNP/Greens Trans crusade.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/raise-all-of-the-flags/

The SNP-Greens seem to have been infiltrated by extremists and seem to be doing all they can to accommodate them. Illegal to speak to your own child now! Let's hope common sense prevails before this comes law.

If you refuse to read Wings then read this.

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articl...sals-draconian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Yes I am posting a link from Wings and will take the flak for that, but ignore for a minute who it's from and read what's coming next in the SNP/Greens Trans crusade.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/raise-all-of-the-flags/

The SNP-Greens seem to have been infiltrated by extremists and seem to be doing all they can to accommodate them. Illegal to speak to your own child now! Let's hope common sense prevails before this comes law.

If you refuse to read Wings then read this.

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articl...sals-draconian

---

Genuinely tried to read that article but the bit in bold is hyperbole, a couple of paragraphs from that page;

Gender expression, of course, is simply how a person presents themselves in terms of dress and general appearance. So under this law, if your 13-year-old son is meeting some friends for a movie and comes down the stairs wearing only a nappy, a ball gag and an adult bib with “CUM SLUT” printed on it, and you say “You’re not bloody going out dressed like that!”, you’ll be committing a crime for which he can have you arrested as long as he claims it’s part of his gender expression.

and

If your teenage daughter is uncomfortable with her developing body – as almost all teenage girls are – and even once suggests that she might prefer to be a boy, you will be committing a punishable criminal act under the law of Scotland if you so much as ask her why she feels that way.

Just my personal opinion, but one of the main reasons this whole issue has blown up is because of sensationalist writings like these!