The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Hold on a minute. Society takes lots of rights away from people who commit offences. In some western societies the state is enabled to kill people. Fortunately we don't do that here, but the idea that restrictions on rights of offenders is somehow odd is just bizarre. Indeed we restrict the rights of people who haven't been convicted. Have you heard of remand? So the level and nature of restrictions on offenders is up for debate. Personally I think it is legitimate to restrict access to the process when a person is accused or convicted of sex crimes

---

You're correct to point out that we restrict the rights of offenders. Such as what jobs they can apply for and the public spaces they can legally access.

This would of course continue to be the case, even if they have a GRC. So what's the issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

This is from a blog which is run by people concerned with the legislation, but it does walk through the issues and process (so far as it is understood) https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org...tin-amendment/

---

Ta :)

MBM have a history of being against the bill, so I'm trying to put that to one side. :greengrin

It does, though, give a reasonable view of how things might work in practice. On the face of it, it seems sensible enough, although my non-lawyer brain has a bit of fog around some of it.

Like all new legislation, until we have some experience of how things work in practice, we can't know of any unintended consequences. That's what the review period is for. That said, if some of the more extreme predictions come to pass, I'd hope they'd be brought back to Parliament PDQ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

You're correct to point out that we restrict the rights of offenders. Such as what jobs they can apply for and the public spaces they can legally access.

This would of course continue to be the case, even if they have a GRC. So what's the issue?

---

The reply was in response to Ozyhibby who appeared (although I can't really believe this) to be concerned that sex offenders and those accused of sex offences would have their right to apply for a GRC constrained. This amendment to the Bill was voted down and instead an amendment was passed which introduced the notification and risk assessment requirement.

Some (rather polemical) lived experience https://4w.pub/you-meet-more-perverts-when-poor/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Ta :)

MBM have a history of being against the bill, so I'm trying to put that to one side. :greengrin

It does, though, give a reasonable view of how things might work in practice. On the face of it, it seems sensible enough, although my non-lawyer brain has a bit of fog around some of it.

Like all new legislation, until we have some experience of how things work in practice, we can't know of any unintended consequences. That's what the review period is for. That said, if some of the more extreme predictions come to pass, I'd hope they'd be brought back to Parliament PDQ.

---

I know you are joking, but I find it really instructive to read stuff by people I don't agree with supporting issues i don't agree with. It helps hone the arguments (and sometimes changes my mind). I'm less certain that there would be a quick referral to the Parliament if there were emerging issues. That's partly because of practical issues with legislation and also because this has become such an article of faith that I think it would be difficult to acknowledge flaws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

The first poll on this will be interesting, I suspect you will be in the minority yet again. Most people are against this Bill.

---

People were against repealing Section 28 and gay rights in the 90s.

Looking back it’s ludicrous.

Not talking about being gay in schools, because we’ll “turn” the kids gay.

J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

And what can the police do? How do they prove the person applying is doing so under false pretences?

---

And if they do, so what? A rapist can rape with or without the GRB.

Also, why not 16 year olds self IDing. They are legal adults in Scotland. Stands to reason.

J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bristolhibby

People were against repealing Section 28 and gay rights in the 90s.

Looking back it’s ludicrous.

Not talking about being gay in schools, because we’ll “turn” the kids gay.

J

---

I don't see the connection?

This is about allowing or not allowing convicted sex offenders applying for a GRC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I know you are joking, but I find it really instructive to read stuff by people I don't agree with supporting issues i don't agree with. It helps hone the arguments (and sometimes changes my mind). I'm less certain that there would be a quick referral to the Parliament if there were emerging issues. That's partly because of practical issues with legislation and also because this has become such an article of faith that I think it would be difficult to acknowledge flaws.

---

Snap. :agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

I don't see the connection?

This is about allowing or not allowing convicted sex offenders applying for a GRC?

---

But even if they have a GRC, they are still a convicted sex offender and the same laws and restrictions will still apply to them. There seems to be people who think that a GRC will allow offenders to circumvent restrictions that are placed on them following their convictions. This simply isn't the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bristolhibby

People were against repealing Section 28 and gay rights in the 90s.

Looking back it’s ludicrous.

Not talking about being gay in schools, because we’ll “turn” the kids gay.

J

---

I wonder if that's what is driving FM now, given the SNP's opposition to elements of the repeal of section 28? Maybe some remorse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

But even if they have a GRC, they are still a convicted sex offender and the same laws and restrictions will still apply to them. There seems to be people who think that a GRC will allow offenders to circumvent restrictions that are placed on them following their convictions. This simply isn't the case.

---

But this is a new law, so the same laws don't apply as this law doesn't exist today. I am sure if someone convicted of a crime that very likely involved lying and manipulation sees even the smallest advantage to be gained they will take it. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for greater safeguarding to be in place. I guess we will just need to agree to disagree on this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I wonder if that's what is driving FM now, given the SNP's opposition to elements of the repeal of section 28? Maybe some remorse?

---

Why would the SNP of today have remorse over opposition to elements of a bill by members of the SNP in the 90s?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

But this is a new law, so the same laws don't apply as this law doesn't exist today. I am sure if someone convicted of a crime that very likely involved lying and manipulation sees even the smallest advantage to be gained they will take it. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for greater safeguarding to be in place. I guess we will just need to agree to disagree on this point.

---

This may be a new law, but it has zero effect over already existing laws pertaining to the restrictions that are already placed on convicted sex offenders. There has been over 5 years of parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that this is the case, which is why the bill received cross party support right across the board.

The 39 MSPs who opposed the bill are not interested in reforming the bill further, they just wanted to delay the bill indefinitely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

You realize the bill works both ways right? It also "reduces the concept" of manhood from a biological certainty to a mere identity (if that's your way of looking at it). As a man, I can't say I really care to be honest. If a biologically born female wishes to transition into a male due to the way they identify themselves, that's none of my business and certainly not my place to tell them that they can't.

As for "stubborn Sturgeon", she (as pointed out multiple times already in this thread), put forward a bill that was backed by MSPs from every single party in Holyrood. SNP, Greens, Lib Dems, Labour and tory MSPs.

The only "mess" here is the one being stirred up by the 2 main parties at Westminster, who are in a race to the bottom to appeal to as many Daily Express readers as possible. There's absolutely zero justification for the actions being taken here and the "reasons" given for it. Because if there was any justification, a Section 33 order would have been enacted, rather than the nuclear option of Section 35 which allows the UK Government to effectively block any bill put forward by a devolved parliament, covering devolved areas, bypassing the court in the process.

---

That's a telling phrase. The reason women's rights groups expressed such furious opposition to this bill is because making it easier for males to 'become women' poses a far more significant threat to women's rights than a female 'becoming a man' does to men's rights (such as they are). The UK government is correct to have taken the action they have to defend women's hard-won freedom of association from those who deemed this peculiar, unpopular bill a good idea. To erase the very idea of womanhood is to erase women's liberties. Just because a man says he is a woman doesn't make him one, no matter how loudly those who seek to dismiss biological reality claim it does. To denounce those who stand up for that biological truth and women's rights as somehow transphobic is desperate stuff.

As for the supposedly harmonious cross-party backing for the bill, I think I'm right in saying the Tories were the only party to allow a free vote. It would have been interesting to see whether it would have enjoyed such backing if the whip had been withdrawn, with the unprecedented SNP rebellion hinting at a deeper concern over a bill which IMHO transcends political allegiance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Why would the SNP of today have remorse over opposition to elements of a bill by members of the SNP in the 90s?

---

Well not just elements of the SNP. The amendments in the Parliament to reflect the special status of marriage were led by now FM. It's interesting to look back on section 28. There was a very widespread keep the clause campaign. The main SNP funder led a campaign to oppose the bill, including a privately funded referendum. There was chatter at the time that the SNP used the Catholic church's opposition to the bill to drive a wedge into Labour voting heartlands. Arguably this was a smart long term strategy from Salmond. I think it's too strong to say this was a turning point, but I do think it was significant on the growth of the SNP. It might have been cynical, but it was effective in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Well not just elements of the SNP. The amendments in the Parliament to reflect the special status of marriage were led by now FM. It's interesting to look back on section 28. There was a very widespread keep the clause campaign. The main SNP funder led a campaign to oppose the bill, including a privately funded referendum. There was chatter at the time that the SNP used the Catholic church's opposition to the bill to drive a wedge into Labour voting heartlands. Arguably this was a smart long term strategy from Salmond. I think it's too strong to say this was a turning point, but I do think it was significant on the growth of the SNP. It might have been cynical, but it was effective in the long run.

---

Souter is a complete ****bag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

That's a telling phrase. The reason women's rights groups expressed such furious opposition to this bill is because making it easier for males to 'become women' poses a far more significant threat to women's rights than a female 'becoming a man' does to men's rights (such as they are). The UK government is correct to have taken the action they have to defend women's hard-won freedom of association from those who deemed this peculiar, unpopular bill a good idea. To erase the very idea of womanhood is to erase women's liberties. Just because a man says he is a woman doesn't make him one, no matter how loudly those who seek to dismiss biological reality claim it does. To denounce those who stand up for that biological truth and women's rights as somehow transphobic is desperate stuff.

As for the supposedly harmonious cross-party backing for the bill, I think I'm right in saying the Tories were the only party to allow a free vote. It would have been interesting to see whether it would have enjoyed such backing if the whip had been withdrawn, with the unprecedented SNP rebellion hinting at a deeper concern over a bill which IMHO transcends political allegiance.

---

The UK government took the cowardly action of blocking a devolved bill from reaching royal assent without legal scrutiny, as they were afraid that they were going to lose in a court of law. Hence the use of Section 35 rather than Section 33.

In doing so, they've effectively opened Pandora's box. What's to prevent them from enacting section 35 whenever a devolved government implements something into law that they simply don't like the look of, even if it has no effect on England?

There's your "union of equals" right there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

The UK government took the cowardly action of blocking a devolved bill from reaching royal assent without legal scrutiny, as they were afraid that they were going to lose in a court of law. Hence the use of Section 35 rather than Section 33.

In doing so, they've effectively opened Pandora's box. What's to prevent them from enacting section 35 whenever a devolved government implements something into law that they simply don't like the look of, even if it has no effect on England?

There's your "union of equals" right there.

---

What's that got to do with what I posted?

Re your own point, the more obvious conclusion to be drawn from the first deployment of a section 35 in the history of the Scottish Parliament is that this is a uniquely ill-advised piece of Holyrood legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

What's that got to do with what I posted?

Re your own point, the more obvious conclusion to be drawn from the first deployment of a section 35 in the history of the Scottish Parliament is that this is a uniquely ill-advised piece of Holyrood legislation.

---

Within 5 years all parts of the UK will have followed Scotland’s example on this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

What's that got to do with what I posted?

Re your own point, the more obvious conclusion to be drawn from the first deployment of a section 35 in the history of the Scottish Parliament is that this is a uniquely ill-advised piece of Holyrood legislation.

---

I'd say, and a lot of others have too, is the more obvious conclusion to be drawn is the Tories were looking to pick a fight for political/electoral reasons.

I don't think their recent legislative history in general supports an argument they were opposed to it because it's 'ill-advised'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Within 5 years all parts of the UK will have followed Scotland’s example on this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Maybe, if the bill is properly amended so that it doesn't erase the idea of 'woman'.

For someone who consistently claimed nobody cared about this legislation you've become one of the most prolific posters on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Maybe, if the bill is properly amended so that it doesn't erase the idea of 'woman'.

For someone who consistently claimed nobody cared about this legislation you've become one of the most prolific posters on the subject.

---

Does the bill erase the idea of women?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Maybe, if the bill is properly amended so that it doesn't erase the idea of 'woman'.

For someone who consistently claimed nobody cared about this legislation you've become one of the most prolific posters on the subject.

---

So that would effectively roll back the 2004 legislation as well then?

As I've said before, a big part of the opposition to this bill comes from those who just don't recognise transitioning at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

What's that got to do with what I posted?

Re your own point, the more obvious conclusion to be drawn from the first deployment of a section 35 in the history of the Scottish Parliament is that this is a uniquely ill-advised piece of Holyrood legislation.

---

If it was "ill-advised", why not use section 33 as i'm sure the court would have concluded this. Right?

Lord falconer and Dominic Grieves debate on drive time on radio Scotland.

Seems clear that there is no change to whether those people who run refuges can prevent people accessing such places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Does the bill erase the idea of women?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Yes, because it no longer limits human sex to biology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

So that would effectively roll back the 2004 legislation as well then?

As I've said before, a big part of the opposition to this bill comes from those who just don't recognise transitioning at all.

---

No, because that legislation does not indulge the pretence that it's possible to change your biological sex.

Standing up for women's rights is not transphobic and does not mean opponents of the bill don't recognise tranisitioning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

No, because that legislation does not indulge the pretence that it's possible to change your biological sex.

---

Nor does the Gender Recognition Bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibby rae

I'd say, and a lot of others have too, is the more obvious conclusion to be drawn is the Tories were looking to pick a fight for political/electoral reasons.

I don't think their recent legislative history in general supports an argument they were opposed to it because it's 'ill-advised'.

---

Totally. If you were looking to see which party was using this as a culture war battle (ie a distraction) you only have to look at their track records. Which politicians are more prone to
"Anti-Woke" bogeyman stuff? (..and bogeywoman stuff, just to stay on point...)

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk