The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Wouldn’t it be quicker and easier for them just to put a wig and dress on if this is really how sexual deviants are going to operate?

I’ve never seen anyone ID’d to enter a toilet.

---

Notorious sticklers for paperwork though, are sexual predators.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Wouldn’t it be quicker and easier for them just to put a wig and dress on if this is really how sexual deviants are going to operate?

I’ve never seen anyone ID’d to enter a toilet.

---

Okay, you're suggesting there's a quicker and easier way for predators to operate so can you 100% guarantee they won't try and abuse the new law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Notorious sticklers for paperwork though, are sexual predators.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Ah, presumably you can give me a 100% guarantee they won't try and abuse the new law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

Okay, you're suggesting there's a quicker and easier way for predators to operate so can you 100% guarantee they won't try and abuse the new law?

---

In the same way I can’t 100% guarantee that the person opposite me at work hasn’t got themselves a job there to perv on people that pass our office window, no I can’t.

It seems like an unlikely scenario though. And I don’t see how this ‘new law’ enhances the potential efficiency of sexual predators.

On a more general point, and not in any way aimed at you to be clear: I wasn’t very sure where I stood on the whole debate, and wasn’t aware of much of the detail. Things do become a little clearer the more the usual suspects who want to find fault in anything connected to “Sturgeon” are putting forward their obsessive, and at times bizarre, arguments with no substance.

A sterling job as always.

[QUOTE=007;7236549]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenlex

And you and HarpOnHibee can 100% guarantee that?

---

In the same way you could guarantee it would?
Predators are predators and has been pointed out they don’t need the piece of paper to be just that.

Police, Doctors and Social workers and the like. Should we make it more difficult or indeed bar trans people from being appointed into these types of professions just in case the odd predator slips through? They do play the long game Ive heard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

In the same way I can’t 100% guarantee that the person opposite me at work hasn’t got themselves a job there to perv on people that pass our office window, no I can’t.

It seems like an unlikely scenario though. And I don’t see how this ‘new law’ enhances the potential efficiency of sexual predators.

On a more general point, and not in any way aimed at you to be clear: I wasn’t very sure where I stood on the whole debate, and wasn’t aware of much of the detail. Things do become a little clearer the more the usual suspects who want to find fault in anything connected to “Sturgeon” are putting forward their obsessive, and at times bizarre, arguments with no substance.

A sterling job as always.

---

Thank you for your reply.

I am not concerned about the person opposite you at work but I am concerned you are not 100% confident no predators would try to take advantage of the changes yet you still seem to support them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenlex

In the same way you could guarantee it would?
Predators are predators and has been pointed out they don’t need the piece of paper to be just that.

---

I can guarantee it won't make it more difficult for them.

You said it won't make it easier for them but you can't guarantee that can you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

I can guarantee it won't make it more difficult for them.

You said it won't make it easier for them but you can't guarantee that can you?

---

I’ve edited my reply but in the same vein should we make it more difficult for trans people from entering professions dealing with vulnerable people just in case? Perhaps even prohibiting it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Wadhwa also told The Guilty Feminist podcast that rape survivors could “reframe” their trauma and have “a more positive relationship with it”.

She was referring to their trauma, not their negative assumptions about transgender people. You've taken her comments out of context in order to manufacture a grievance.

Which is ironic, because it very much falls into the category of negative assumptions that people make about transgender people.

---

Selective quoting. Your obviously new to the incident and don't remember it yourself. The question was should women be allowed to not have a trans councillor. Some of her colleagues defender her, some said people can hold whatever view they want on transgender people

She said therapy is political and people's prejudices will be challenged after seeking help after being raped. Just admit your wrong on this as what she says is shocking

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19509343.outcry-plan-educate-bigoted-rape-survivors-trans-rights/

Mridul Wadhwa, a transgender woman, said people would not truly recover unless they addressed their “unacceptable beliefs” because “therapy is political”.

“We will work with you... but please expect to be challenged on your prejudices."


"Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. It is not a discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you."

“But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma.
“But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenlex

I’ve edited my reply but in the same vein should we make it more difficult for trans people from entering professions dealing with vulnerable people just in case? Perhaps even prohibiting it?

---

You've again avoided saying whether or not a 100% guarantee can be given that it won't make it easier for predators. Let's cover that matter off first before moving to another aspect of the debate.

You said it won't but you're not prepared to guarantee it which means you are not 100% confident so you are accepting there is a chance (maybe just a very very small one) that it might.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

You've again avoided saying whether or not a 100% guarantee can be given that it won't make it easier for predators. Let's cover that matter off first before moving to another aspect of the debate.

You said it won't but you're not prepared to guarantee it which means you are not 100% confident so you are accepting there is a chance (maybe just a very very small one) that it might.

---

Can you 100% guarantee if the change doesn’t go ahead now, that a trans persons won’t feel aggrieved and go out and attack someone?

I know . Ridiculous, isn’t it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

In the same way I can’t 100% guarantee that the person opposite me at work hasn’t got themselves a job there to perv on people that pass our office window, no I can’t.

It seems like an unlikely scenario though. And I don’t see how this ‘new law’ enhances the potential efficiency of sexual predators.

On a more general point, and not in any way aimed at you to be clear: I wasn’t very sure where I stood on the whole debate, and wasn’t aware of much of the detail. Things do become a little clearer the more the usual suspects who want to find fault in anything connected to “Sturgeon” are putting forward their obsessive, and at times bizarre, arguments with no substance.

A sterling job as always.

---

That's pretty much the point I've found myself at. I was unsure what side of the debate I was on until I actually read the new legislation and saw that most of the concerns were theoretical, however the clincher for me was those making the arguments against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

You've again avoided saying whether or not a 100% guarantee can be given that it won't make it easier for predators. Let's cover that matter off first before moving to another aspect of the debate.

You said it won't but you're not prepared to guarantee it which means you are not 100% confident so you are accepting there is a chance (maybe just a very very small one) that it might.

---

If your basis for passing any legislation is having a 100% guarantee on its actions then I'm afraid nothing will get done as that's an impossible bar to achieve.

I've said this before on this thread and I'll say it again. There is an awful lot of posters on here who seem heavily invested in women's safety and rights judging by the frequency and type of post on this thread.

I look around the rest of the site though, and that concern doesn't seem to continue. In fact there are very few other threads around this topic. We've just had yet another case of the Met police shielding and failing to deal with a horrifically violent officer preying on women. And yet it's trans people we should be most worried about and who need post after post written about them based on stuff here.

Given the standard seems to be the legislation cannot be be 100% guaranteed to stop an abuser finding a way round it, maybe we should shut the Met police as ultimately we can't be 100% sure there are not serving officers who are a grave threat to women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

You've again avoided saying whether or not a 100% guarantee can be given that it won't make it easier for predators. Let's cover that matter off first before moving to another aspect of the debate.

You said it won't but you're not prepared to guarantee it which means you are not 100% confident so you are accepting there is a chance (maybe just a very very small one) that it might.

---

There is nothing easier than going and doing the deed. Why bother going to the bother of changing your gender to do it so therefore it by very definition isn’t easier. It’s more work if you like. As has been said numerous times they are going to do it regardless. will it facilitate an opportunity? Perhaps but no more than the other situations regarding professions. It’s not an excuse not to change the process speed wise regarding trans people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Can you 100% guarantee if the change doesn’t go ahead now, that one of these big nasty trans persons won’t feel aggrieved and go out and attack someone?

I know . Ridiculous, isn’t it.

---

Your sarcastic implication that I'm anti-trans is what's ridiculous.

You are equating what a trans person might do if the bill doesn't go through with what a predator might do if it does. That is also ridiculous.

I don't think a trans person would do that but can't guarantee it. I think it is very very low risk. You can't guarantee a predator won't try and take advantage of the changes if they do go ahead. What level of risk would you put on it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

Your sarcastic implication that I'm anti-trans is what's ridiculous.

You are equating what a trans person might do if the bill doesn't go through with what a predator might do if it does. That is also ridiculous.

I don't think a trans person would do that but can't guarantee it. I think it is very very low risk. You can't guarantee a predator won't try and take advantage of the changes if they do go ahead. What level of risk would you put on it?

---

Yes I apologise for the (since edited prior to your reply) first line as after reading it I realised how it came across.

It’s all ridiculous, which was my point. And I’m not equating anything - I was asking for a 100% guarantee of a seemingly daft and hypothetical scenario, in the same way you’ve been demanding the same of a number of people before agreeing to discuss anything else.

I don’t think the proposed changes will make any difference to the likelihood of a predator attacking. I can’t guarantee it but think it’s very very low risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

That's pretty much the point I've found myself at. I was unsure what side of the debate I was on until I actually read the new legislation and saw that most of the concerns were theoretical, however the clincher for me was those making the arguments against.

---

Who people like Joanna Cherry, Michelle Thomson or the severely disabled lady a few pages back that said this will effect her getting female only intimate care.

This isn't black and white even if the defenders pray they can frame it as that. I don't believe it will increase sexual assault at all personally. But I do believe women shouldn't have their rights diminished. The vast majority of the population back 90% of this legislation, so the transphobic shtick doesn't work.

The one 1% of nutters on each side should be ignored and shouted down. On one side idiots that think trans are weird or sexual predators and on the other side ones that think lesbians who wouldn't go with a trans are bigoted or females who want female only care/spaces are bigots.

The problem is the later group are increasing given positions of power in this debate and are even in the government decision making process

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 007

Your sarcastic implication that I'm anti-trans is what's ridiculous.

You are equating what a trans person might do if the bill doesn't go through with what a predator might do if it does. That is also ridiculous.

I don't think a trans person would do that but can't guarantee it. I think it is very very low risk. You can't guarantee a predator won't try and take advantage of the changes if they do go ahead. What level of risk would you put on it?

---

I think it’s a lower risk than a trans person losing the plot being aggrieved so I’m going to put it at the very very very low category.
You are arguing that a sexual predator will effectively turn trans to get access to victims that they can already access quite freely at the moment should they wish. Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neil7908

If your basis for passing any legislation is having a 100% guarantee on its actions then I'm afraid nothing will get done as that's an impossible bar to achieve.

I've said this before on this thread and I'll say it again. There is an awful lot of posters on here who seem heavily invested in women's safety and rights judging by the frequency and type of post on this thread.

I look around the rest of the site though, and that concern doesn't seem to continue. In fact there are very few other threads around this topic. We've just had yet another case of the Met police shielding and failing to deal with a horrifically violent officer preying on women. And yet it's trans people we should be most worried about and who need post after post written about them based on stuff here.

Given the standard seems to be the legislation cannot be be 100% guaranteed to stop an abuser finding a way round it, maybe we should shut the Met police as ultimately we can't be 100% sure there are not serving officers who are a grave threat to women.

---

You should see how all these magnificent defenders of women’s rights talk to and about NS online.[emoji102]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Who people like Joanna Cherry, Michelle Thomson or the severely disabled lady a few pages back that said this will effect her getting female only intimate care.

This isn't black and white even if the defenders pray they can frame it as that. I don't believe it will increase sexual assault at all personally. But I do believe women shouldn't have their rights diminished. The vast majority of the population back 90% of this legislation, so the transphobic shtick doesn't work.

The one 1% of nutters on each side should be ignored and shouted down. On one side idiots that think trans are weird or sexual predators and on the other side ones that think lesbians who wouldn't go with a trans are bigoted or females who want female only care/spaces are bigots.

The problem is the later group are increasing given positions of power in this debate and are even in the government decision making process

---

This is a pretty fair post, I agree with a lot of it. And I don’t think the names you’ve given are the sort of people who Hibrandenberg was referring to, no. Certainly wasn’t who I meant.

It’s definitely not black and white. Both H and I have said as much by conceding we weren’t entirely sure where we stood here. I would argue that there’s been more manufactured and ridiculous scenarios painted over the last few pages of this thread, then there has legitimate concerns. Which was kind of our point.

On your last line though, do you not think the theme of both sides applies here too?

I personally think that there will be far more than 1% of people ‘against the bill’ who are anti-trans, or at least don’t have the legitimate concerns they are pretending to, whether they admit that to themselves or not. But that’s another argument.

Is the vast majority/90% thing something you’ve read, or a general estimate?

Someone earlier in the thread told us (along the lines of) the majority of people don’t care about trans people’s rights because they want better education and housing, which is an example of the more silly and ignorant arguments.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/opini...re-parliament/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

This is a pretty fair post, I agree with a lot of it. And I don’t think the names you’ve given are the sort of people who Hibrandenberg was referring to, no. Certainly wasn’t who I meant.

It’s definitely not black and white. Both H and I have said as much by conceding we weren’t entirely sure where we stood here. I would argue that there’s been more manufactured and ridiculous scenarios painted over the last few pages of this thread, then there has legitimate concerns. Which was kind of our point.

On your last line though, do you not think the theme of both sides applies here too?

I personally think that there will be far more than 1% of people ‘against the bill’ who are anti-trans, or at least don’t have the legitimate concerns they are pretending to, whether they admit that to themselves or not. But that’s another argument.

---

Sorry I meant 1% of total pop that is on that extreme side. Yes perhaps a higher percentage of those against the bill have backwards views.

I genuinely believe though that the vast vast majority of the population agree with more rights and better treatment of trans, but want a few caveats. I don't think that is anti trans just perhaps weighing one groups rights without losing to much of another's groups rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Who people like Joanna Cherry, Michelle Thomson or the severely disabled lady a few pages back that said this will effect her getting female only intimate care.

This isn't black and white even if the defenders pray they can frame it as that. I don't believe it will increase sexual assault at all personally. But I do believe women shouldn't have their rights diminished. The vast majority of the population back 90% of this legislation, so the transphobic shtick doesn't work.

The one 1% of nutters on each side should be ignored and shouted down. On one side idiots that think trans are weird or sexual predators and on the other side ones that think lesbians who wouldn't go with a trans are bigoted or females who want female only care/spaces are bigots.

The problem is the later group are increasing given positions of power in this debate and are even in the government decision making process

---

No, people on here who regularly comment on women regarding their appearance rather than their character or beliefs or who previously said that men who stand in support of women are somehow creepy but are now themselves stalwarts of female equality and those who are normally so conservative that they'd like to conserve us all back to Victorian times. There's more to the polarisation behind this debate on here than trans rights or women's rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Why would a sexual deviant want to specifically target women's refuges when they have a multitude of options open to them anyway? Considering the small percentage of actual sexual abusers over society as a whole, what do you honestly think the likelihood is of a sexual abuser with no previous criminal convictions, waiting 3 months so they can pretend to be a woman, just so they can specifically target a women's refuge? I would say not very likely at all. It's not exactly a place where they'd be less likely to be caught, considering these are vulnerable women who have a close watch over them at all times to ensure their own safety.

---

So why have women's groups been raising issues? Why did a Government minister take a position that got her sacked? Why did the UN Rapporteur on violence against women raise concerns? All of these women got it wrong and just didn't understand their fears were groundless ? Is that it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neil7908

If your basis for passing any legislation is having a 100% guarantee on its actions then I'm afraid nothing will get done as that's an impossible bar to achieve.

I've said this before on this thread and I'll say it again. There is an awful lot of posters on here who seem heavily invested in women's safety and rights judging by the frequency and type of post on this thread.

I look around the rest of the site though, and that concern doesn't seem to continue. In fact there are very few other threads around this topic. We've just had yet another case of the Met police shielding and failing to deal with a horrifically violent officer preying on women. And yet it's trans people we should be most worried about and who need post after post written about them based on stuff here.

Given the standard seems to be the legislation cannot be be 100% guaranteed to stop an abuser finding a way round it, maybe we should shut the Met police as ultimately we can't be 100% sure there are not serving officers who are a grave threat to women.

---

I'm not talking about legislations needing to have a 100% guarantee on their actions. I'm talking about 1 legislation having a 100% guarantee it's intended actions won't have a side effect that's detrimental to women and girl's safety. What is wrong with being concerned about that?

It is appropriate to this thread. Are you suggesting that because it isn't elsewhere on this site then nobody is concerned about it?

You're analogy with the police doesn't work. Nobody has proposed a legislation which has a side effect of making it easier for the police to commit abuse.

Seems like you are happy to accept a potential increase in risk to women's and girl's saftey. Are you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

No, people on here who regularly comment on women regarding their appearance rather than their character or beliefs or who previously said that men who stand in support of women are somehow creepy but are now themselves stalwarts of female equality and those who are normally so conservative that they'd like to conserve us all back to Victorian times. There's more to the polarisation behind this debate on here than trans rights or women's rights.

---

Yep. I’d also add that it would be interesting to see if one or two of our posters who have put themselves at the heart of this debate, would be quite as vocal in their concerns, or even on the same side, if (for example) Nicola Sturgeon and J K Rowling were to swap stances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

So why have women's groups been raising issues? Why did a Government minister take a position that got her sacked? Why did the UN Rapporteur on violence against women raise concerns? All of these women got it wrong and just didn't understand their fears were groundless ? Is that it?

---

I think their fears are groundless. They may be real but they do appear to be groundless. I don’t see any prospect of a large rise in trans predators. It hasn’t happened in any other country that introduced self ID so I can’t see why it would happen here?
All I see are evermore obscure hypotheticals getting thrown around. I’m not surprised that some women are now afraid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

This is a pretty fair post, I agree with a lot of it. And I don’t think the names you’ve given are the sort of people who Hibrandenberg was referring to, no. Certainly wasn’t who I meant.

It’s definitely not black and white. Both H and I have said as much by conceding we weren’t entirely sure where we stood here. I would argue that there’s been more manufactured and ridiculous scenarios painted over the last few pages of this thread, then there has legitimate concerns. Which was kind of our point.

On your last line though, do you not think the theme of both sides applies here too?

I personally think that there will be far more than 1% of people ‘against the bill’ who are anti-trans, or at least don’t have the legitimate concerns they are pretending to, whether they admit that to themselves or not. But that’s another argument.

Is the vast majority/90% thing something you’ve read, or a general estimate?

Someone earlier in the thread told us (along the lines of) the majority of people don’t care about trans people’s rights because they want better education and housing, which is an example of the more silly and ignorant arguments.

---

Didn't see your edits. The 90% is an estimate from what polling there is. The vast majority agree to people changing sex. They agree to every other change bar a couple that is changing the age to 16, changing with the help of a doctor, having female only spaces/situations and sports

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Yep. I’d also add that it would be interesting to see if one or two of our posters who have put themselves at the heart of this debate, would be quite as vocal in their concerns, or even on the same side, if (for example) Nicola Sturgeon and J K Rowling were to swap stances.

---

Zero chance of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

however the clincher for me was those making the arguments against.

---

Women? Feminist groups?