Printable View
This is a cold and calculated decision by the Tory Government taken with the main aim of giving the Scottish Government a bloody nose. They are gambling on the legislation itself being unpopular in Scotland and hoping that Sturgeon has picked the wrong hill to die on. It’s just plain nasty. I hope this backfires on them big style.
Hopefully :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
But the press and huge swathes of the media in Scotland are doing their damn hardest to ensure that it doesn't. The media coverage of this bill and the fundamental confusion that it has caused is beyond criminal.
https://twitter.com/DalgetySusan/sta...7Ctwgr%5EtweetQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
No gambling required. Most folk in Scotland do not support this. Toon cooncil MSPs spending too much time on an issue that the vast majority don't care about at the expense of things that really do affect their daily lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
It wasn't always like this in the Scottish Parliament. The level of talent and quality of thinking has nosedive in the past 10 years.
Green MSPs elected to look after environmental matters now increasingly all about non-"green" issues.
The whole place needs a full reset.
Not sure why you've quoted me.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I saw Glenn Campbell on BBC Scotland earlier saying the UK Labour Party won't challenge the government intervention. Not a surprise given Starmer tacit backing for it over the last couple of days. Labour are in a mess over this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Her tweet relates to the misguided guff Leonard was coming out with.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That statement could have been cut and pasted from anything over the past 10 years 😀Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Don't support it? Or fundamentally fail to understand what the bill is even about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibby Bairn
Every day I see people squabbling in their echo chambers over social media, whinging about "law changes", that unbeknown to themselves, have been in place in Scotland for over 12 years.
It ultimately shouldn't matter if a majority of people "don't care about it". A majority of people in Scotland are not transgender. But the rights of transgender people will be recognized, as should be the case for all groups of society, large and small.
As I said earlier, I doubt this was Sunak's preferred option, but I find it hard to see how they could have taken any other course of action here. The Scotland Act makes provisions for Westminster to intervene when laws passed by a devolved legislature affect those which operate UK-wide. Such safeguards are surely key to the devolution framework? Until now, those safeguards have not been required, but I think it's hard to deny the case for using them is strong here.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
That's the crux of this matter, not all the hot air about democracy denial and undermining of trans rights which will now be spouted for many weeks/months to come.
Not even a legislator, back bench position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I think there are more, better-informed folk in Scotland (in particular women) who understand very well what this legislation is about...and few, if any, are up in arms about recognising trans rights. The likes of J K Rowling have been strong, articulate and consistent voices when it comes to articulating what the real concerns around this bill are for many, and while these concerns are not necessarily at the heart of the UK government's decision today, they are heartfelt.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
I've posted this before, but I thought this was one of the better (and, it turns out, prescient) articles which summed up such concerns...as well as the equally important fears around children's rights:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...almost-everone
Eh? All MSPs are legislators and she was on the GRA Committee as deputy convener, so most definitely a key player.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Once again, all of these unfounded fears of women being in some kind of imminent danger are based on laws that have been in force in Scotland since 2010 under the Equality Act. Where are all the horror stories of predator males in drag committing assaults on women in female safe spaces over the past 12 years? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
It's a strawman argument, as it has nothing in retaliation to the Gender Recognition Bill which changes nothing in regards to the use of female safe spaces by transgender people, which again is covered by the 2010 Equality Act.
From Stonewall.
The UK Government should be focused on developing and implementing a strategy that improves the lives of all LGBTQ+ people, including trans people, not causing them more harm.
Despite being a small population, trans people live in every community in the UK. They are our classmates, our colleagues, our friends and our family. Yet today's decision by the Prime Minister's treats trans people as a threat to be contained, not citizens to be respected.
Twenty years on from the repeal of Section 28, the Prime Minister will re-toxify his party's brand by repeating historic mistakes for LGBTO+ people. This is out of step with the inclusive values of modern Britain.
The Gender Recognition Reform Bill was passed by a decisive majority of MSPs, after having received more extensive scrutiny than any other legislation in the Scottish Parliament's history.
It does not interact with Equality Act - clarified by successful amendments from a Scottish Labour MSP; and it contains more safeguards than the UK Gender Recognition Act - thanks to successful amendments by a Scottish Conservative MSP.
The concerns cited by the Prime Minister have been addressed by Scottish politicians from across the parties.
This is the nuclear option. It is the only time that Section 35 of the Scotland Act has been used since 1998, in an unprecedented move which significantly undermines the devolution settlement and will unlock constitutional and diplomatic strife.
The SGP manifesto in 2021 specifically mentions delivering GRA reform, among a plethora of non-“green” issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibby Bairn
I think you talking about the majority of people not caring about the rights of a group of human beings, and what you describe as lacking in quality of thinking being, to others, progressive and compassionate politics is a good example of some people being at very different ends of the political scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibby Bairn
I can understand some of the concerns coming from the opposing side here, but trying to dismiss the whole thing as something not important enough and getting in the way of what matters comes across as a very backward and unfortunate view.
I wonder where we’d be now if some of the minority groups who have achieved great historic accomplishments throughout the world had their fights dismissed by that attitude?
What about the 6ft trans women who don't physically assault anybody or send sexual threats to bigots online? You know, the vast majority of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by 500miles
Are the 6ft trans women who do commit these crimes any worse than the 6ft non-trans men who are just as guilty of the same crimes?
I think they hold a position which is based on belief rather than measurable evidence, and to base legislation on that is fundamentalism. But there are plenty of religious people who would like thier own beliefs enshrined in law, and while I think those are fundamentalist positions, I don't think they are monsters either.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
I think the transwomen that commit the same crimes as nontrans men are materially no different from those men. That's why I think transwomen and men need to be subject to the same safeguards. Unless fully transitioned, we present the same potential threat, even though the vast majority of both of us wouldn't dream of committing such horrendous crimes.
Your mask is slipping by the way, calling the recipients of sexual threats "bigots". These women must have been asking for it eh? Victim blaming and misogyny, very cool.
Care to point out which aspects of the Gender Reform Bill have you so concerned about the safety of women in female spaces. Keeping in mind that transgender women have been entering female spaces legally in Scotland since 2010 under the Equality Act and that this bill has absolutely no effect on the Equality Act?Quote:
Originally Posted by 500miles
Perhaps you'd also like to explain why you think a man capable of committing the crime of sexual assault against a woman would even bother to go the hassle of pretending to identify as a female to gain access to female spaces, when they can simply break the law and enter these spaces as men regardless? After all, they're about to commit a crime anyway, so why would they be concerned about entering female spaces as men?
I'm not sure what you think is hiding behind my apparent mask. I've been pretty consistent about where I stand on this whole situation. Once you apply logical reasoning, the argument of women being in peril due to this bill rapidly falls apart and it's the mask of those making the strawman argument that ultimately slips.
Someone tried to put an amendment on the Gender Reform Bill to say that sex offenders or rapists shouldn't be able to Self-ID into woman's prisons and Nicola Sturgeon said that these were ill-founded concerns and pushed the Bill through so this aspect of the Bill is a concern for the safety of women in women only spaces.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Katie Dolatowski, identified as a woman to gain access to woman only spaces. This is the male pedophile who identifies as a woman who was convicted of filming a 12 year old girl with the mobile phone over the partition wall in the female toilet cubicle of a Dunfermline Asda Store. Same person also grabbed a 10 year old year old girl by the face in a Morrisons in Kircaldy forced her into the female toilet cubicle and sexually assaulted her. This person had stayed at a domestic violence refuge for mothers and children in Leeds for 71 days and also a woman only hostel in Fife.
Katie Dolatowski was jailed at Polmot young offenders institute for male offenders but after physically assaulting a fellow inmate has since been transferred to the woman only Cornton Vale Prison.
Under the Gender Reform Bill as it stood there would have been nothing to stop someone like Katie Dolatowski getting in a car and driving to England or Wales legally identifying as a woman and accessing woman only spaces. This is why the Bill as it stood impacted on the UK Equalities Act. It also seems to be the reason Sturgeon was so keen on pushing bad legislation through to force the UK government to stop it, thus using trans people as a political football to challenge the powers of the assembly.
https://news.stv.tv/west-central/sco...-dolatowski-to cornton-vale-prison
:agree: Judge a society on how it treats the weakest in that society.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
This new thing of saying people who don't like aspects of the bill are anti trans is pathetic. Its more nuanced than that. You can support trans rights and freedoms but still think for instance the age should be 18 before forever changing your body. That's not bigoted it's an opinion
You can say biological females should have there choice of going to rape crisis centres, some say that's bigoted the majority say its not.
It's not one side is pro trans one anti. The pro gra group like to say that to make themselves look and feel good but we all know it's nonsense.
Who is saying this new thing, out of interest? (I’m not totally up-to-date on this)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
People on this thread and political shows twitter ect. They are framing it as pro gra is pro trans and anti or amending gra is anti trans. They think it helps them win the argument but it's very basic thinkingQuote:
Originally Posted by WeeRussell
That criminal would still be a criminal with or without the GRB.Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
This Bill makes no difference to their crimes. The fact that they were committed before the Bill was passed should be the clue.
J
There will be no forever changing of anyone’s body before 18. Have you seen NHS waiting times?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They could go private if they had the means, they could also be prescribed drugs that block hormones etc all just when 16.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Imagine if Shiloh Pitt was growing up in Scotland. She was adamant she wanted to be a boy when younger, but she grew up and doesn't want to be anymore.
https://www.lifeandstylemag.com/post...tt-now-143408/
Chapman said she wants hormone blockers to be available to 8 year olds and the greens pay her still and we pay her large msp salary. Hopefully snp get a majority so can kick these nut jobs out.
Chapman also said you can't know what sex you are unless you get a chromosome test. Wonder if the wife is a lad, the two bairns makes me think not though
This response on her twitter feed clearly indicates what's at play here.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
That's why we have sec 33 in the Scotland act. If the UK gov believes that a bill passed in Holyrood interferes with a reserved matter then royal assent is paused until the Supreme Court clarifies. That's not what the UK did, it enacted a sec 35 and unilaterally vetoed the Bill.