The Trans Rights Debate

I got one 'free' read when I clicked on this, but you may need a New Statesman account to see the full article. Mind you, the headline and sub-heading sum things up pretty accurately:

Rishi Sunak has every right to block Scotland’s gender bill - New Statesman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickhibby

Not disagreeing, the beast needs punished and should have been caught and charged years ago. However case of a trans woman here in Fife attacking little girls in supermarket toilets… not one size fits all, but obviously, imho prevention is better than a cure.

---

Did the preventions in place stop the latest Met Officer's crimes?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Did the preventions in place stop the latest Met Officer's crimes?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

Obviously not 🙄 but lets deflect and ignore an Act that could put predators in women’s safe spaces

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...76164761cb.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

From the Guardian:



Sounds like Alister's razor sharp mind is right on top of his brief as usual. :wink:

---

He was almost incoherent, sounding like he took public speaking lessons from Boris Johnson.

As for saying that Philippa Whitford was not telling the truth 🙄

https://twitter.com/Dr_PhilippaW/status/1615364477603680256?t=Qb-XZvKcEuFps9kIUldwLg&s=19

Listen and see what you think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickhibby

Obviously not [emoji849] but lets deflect and ignore an Act that could put predators in women’s safe spaces

---

I'm not ignoring anything. No act of any parliament puts predators into women's safe spaces, predators do that - usually regardless of laws.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

To counter the link to link to Roddy Dunlop folk should look at the tweet from Jo Maugham from the good law project. I don't think he has any particular Independence/unionist axe to grind so pretty interesting stuff. Apologies for not being able to post link as I am a complete Luddite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weecounty hibby

To counter the link to link to Roddy Dunlop folk should look at the tweet from Jo Maugham from the good law project. I don't think he has any particular Independence/unionist axe to grind so pretty interesting stuff. Apologies for not being able to post link as I am a complete Luddite

---

Presuming this
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/st...600193536?s=20

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...8/html-version

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElginHibbie

Presuming this
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/st...600193536?s=20

---

👏👏👏

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElginHibbie

Presuming this
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/st...600193536?s=20

---

Thank you, you must be some sort of magician!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weecounty hibby

Thank you, you must be some sort of magician!!

---

Only had to edit the post 3 times before I got it right :wink:

Scottish secretary Alister Jack issued notice of the order – which effectively allows Westminster to “veto” any Holyrood Bill which may have an “adverse effect” on UK laws or how they are applied – on Monday.

He said the impact of the legislation on the rest of the UK meant the Bill could not be given assent, citing effects on the “operation of single-sex clubs, associations and schools and protections such as equal pay,” though added concerns remained over “fraudulent or bad faith applications”.

Are single sex clubs not against the equality act?

Equal pay?

What is he talking about?

Sturgeon telling porkies?

She said in an interview "If there had been these concerns, and I still don't understand the basis of these concerns about the interaction with the Equalities Act (they) would have been raised at a much much earlier stage through some of the formal processes that are in existence"

In September 2022 the EHRC wrote to the Scottish Government to set out "potential cross border implications of reform" including impact on the Equalities Act in the rUK. In the same letter it said;

"The operation of other provisions relating to sex discrimination across Great Britain, including equal pay between women and men, gender pay gap reporting, and measures to address disadvantages experienced by women, will be affected by the proposed changes.."

"In our view, there are implications for the operation of the Equality Act 2010 whether or not the UK Government elects to recognise Scottish GRCs obtained under the reformed system in the other nations of the UK"

Nicola Sturgeon's memory must be letting her down again.

Is Sarwar on holiday just now? Starmer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/st...Ayy33CSZRXH8cw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

The Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and a Kings Council lawyer explains why this is not an "attack on democracy". A S35 is part of the devolution settlement, how can it be anti democratic when it's democracy in action as it's part of the Scotland Act. If a S35 is being used inappropriately then the courts will intervene.

https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1...7kE79IL9g&s=19

Oh, and the SNP voted for the current devolution settlement.

---

If the courts intervene, the Conservative Government will simply overrule the court's intervention. They've bundled through legislation that allows them to do that now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weecounty hibby

To counter the link to link to Roddy Dunlop folk should look at the tweet from Jo Maugham from the good law project. I don't think he has any particular Independence/unionist axe to grind so pretty interesting stuff. Apologies for not being able to post link as I am a complete Luddite

---

Does Dunlop have an axe to grind?

I have to say, the vocal minority has really made an issue that only actually affects 0.5% of the population into something of a big deal when it really comes down to letting a small amount of people be recognised in the way they want to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Does Dunlop have an axe to grind?

---

You tell me? I never said he did, I only said that Maugham doesn't. Dunlop was someone who demanded that the SG follow Kwartengs lead, I believe you may also have said similar, or he was moving to England so maybe he does. Be interested to hear your take on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickhibby

Really, perhaps you will be able to say that to any victims assaulted by a predator.

---

I can't believe people are still coming out with this. The Gender Recognition Bill does not give some go ahead for predators to assault people. It's outrageous and an unfortunate result of the modern day disinformation campaign from right wing media outlets to put a stopper on progressive policy implementation.

Please take the time to read the bill. Very similar bills have been in force in other countries for years, without all of the hyperbole.

Do we know the reasons for the s35 order yet? It’s not clear from what the UK govt has put out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

The 'nothing has changed' mantra brings to mind Theresa May...and I don't see how anyone can claim that a bill which removes all safeguards when it comes to a male being recognised as a woman in law changes nothing. Were this bill to become law a man who says he is a woman literally is one in every sense. The 'living in your acquired gender' stipulation is meaningless as no Scottish government minister has been able to say what this actually means. Couple that with the serious concerns around children being able to change their legal sex and it's pretty clear why there's such strong opposition to a bill with such potentially dangerous implications.

---

This bill does not allow a man to simply state that he feels like a woman today, just so he can legally access female spaces in order to commit illegal acts (which would be a pointless course of action anyway). If you had taken the time to actually read the bill, you would have been fully aware of this.

Once again, it's hyperbole that has been stirred up by an anti-progressive Conservative press that is completely baseless and out of touch with the reality of the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Do we know the reasons for the s35 order yet? It’s not clear from what the UK govt has put out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

It's all in here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...8/html-version

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Do we know the reasons for the s35 order yet? It’s not clear from what the UK govt has put out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

According to the yam fud, it's 13 pages of thin gruel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

It's all in here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...8/html-version

---

There is nothing in that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

This bill does not allow a man to simply state that he feels like a woman today, just so he can legally access female spaces in order to commit illegal acts (which would be a pointless course of action anyway). If you had taken the time to actually read the bill, you would have been fully aware of this.

Once again, it's hyperbole that has been stirred up by an anti-progressive Conservative press that is completely baseless and out of touch with the reality of the situation.

---

The first line of your post is true though isn't it? A man could decide he feels like a woman one day and 3 months later hey presto they are a woman?

Forget about bad or good intentions about doing it, that's what the Bill allows someone to do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

There is nothing in that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Why do you think that, what bits do you think are wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

It's all in here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...8/html-version

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Statement of Reasons

The amendments made by the Bill to the 2004 Act will make it quicker and easier for Scottish applicants to obtain a full GRC, removing a number of measures which the UK government regards as important safeguards, including:

• the removal of the requirement for an applicant to have or have had a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (and, correspondingly, the removal of the requirement for an applicant to provide medical reports with their application)
• a reduction in the minimum age for applicants from 18 to 16
• a reduction in the period for which an applicant must have lived in their acquired gender before submitting an application, from 2 years to 3 months (or 6 months for applicants aged under 18), alongside the introduction of a mandatory 3 month reflection period
• the removal of the requirement for an applicant to provide any evidence that they have lived in their acquired gender when submitting an application
• the removal of the requirement for a Panel to be satisfied that the applicant meets the criteria, with applications instead being made to the Registrar General for Scotland

---

These are the reasons given for the UK Government's opposition to the Gender Reform Bill. Problem is, they've given no evidence based explanations as to why these reasons are even considered a relevant cause of concern. All they've done here is stated the changes that the bill makes, without giving reasons as to why it's a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

The first line of your post is true though isn't it? A man could decide he feels like a woman one day and 3 months later hey presto they are a woman?

---

So what's the problem?

Why would a man who has the intent of committing sexual assault, wait 3 months to have their gender identification changed just so they can legally access a female space in order to commit an illegal act?

It's completely illogical.