The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibby Bairn

I've read this six times now and I'm still not sure what's going on 🙃

---

Just wait for the next chapter when he sues the NHS for not providing him with a prostate checkup institutional discrimination against transmen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

The biological sex never changes, its just how people define themselves. Personally think people can define themselves as they like.

---

Isn't that the whole crux of the debate though?

It's been accepted for quite literally millennia that there are multiple genders and that gender is fluid. It's ultimately a social construct and the removal of barriers in recent times to allow people to more freely express themselves is welcome. It's a small thing but my daughter loves dinosaurs; traditionally clothes featuring dinosaurs would have been in the boys section of a shop, now many shops have removed gender specific sections of their shop so she can wear what she likes without feeling she is wearing 'boys clothes'. That's a flippant example in a serious debate.

The argument now seems to be moving towards an idea of biological sex being a construct of society as well and that's a whole different matter. The term 'assigned at birth' points to that. Your sex isn't assigned at birth, it's defined based on biological observations. There really is only 3 possible outcomes to such observations, male, female and in a tiny percentage of cases intersex. Anyone should be able to choose to live their lives not bound by the social 'norms' of what is expected of men and women. Dress how you like, use what pronouns you like, call yourself what you like and forget all the hysteria and use whatever toilet you like as well. Do I believe though that trans men are wholly men or trans women are wholly women? No, I don't. A woman who doesn't want someone who's muscle development was aided by years of testosterone crashing into her at full pelt on a rugby field isn't a bigot for saying so. A beauty therapist who refuse to carry out a bikini wax on someone with male sexual organs isn't a bigot. Women who were raped by someone with a ***** and testicles are not bigots for not wanting someone with those same organs heading up a rape support charity or providing counselling services for them.

I daresay I'm a bigot for saying what I have have above but I stand by it. I've no issue with much of self ID, access to reassignment services and hormone therapy should be widespread, across a huge spectrum of areas trans people should have exactly the same rights as anyone else and I can't see why anyone would argue differently. However there can't just be a complete abandonment of biological reality and that means there has to be a tiny number of areas were exceptions are made. Simply screaming 'trans women are women' or 'trans men are men' is every bit as detrimental to the debate as people screaming 'there's only 2 genders'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

He's getting rid of his boobs, but keeping downstairs lady parts

---

So is Jude a man or a woman?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibby Bairn

So is Jude a man or a woman?

---

Well born a female and transitioning to man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

Isn't that the whole crux of the debate though?

It's been accepted for quite literally millennia that there are multiple genders and that gender is fluid. It's ultimately a social construct and the removal of barriers in recent times to allow people to more freely express themselves is welcome. It's a small thing but my daughter loves dinosaurs; traditionally clothes featuring dinosaurs would have been in the boys section of a shop, now many shops have removed gender specific sections of their shop so she can wear what she likes without feeling she is wearing 'boys clothes'. That's a flippant example in a serious debate.

The argument now seems to be moving towards an idea of biological sex being a construct of society as well and that's a whole different matter. The term 'assigned at birth' points to that. Your sex isn't assigned at birth, it's defined based on biological observations. There really is only 3 possible outcomes to such observations, male, female and in a tiny percentage of cases intersex. Anyone should be able to choose to live their lives not bound by the social 'norms' of what is expected of men and women. Dress how you like, use what pronouns you like, call yourself what you like and forget all the hysteria and use whatever toilet you like as well. Do I believe though that trans men are wholly men or trans women are wholly women? No, I don't. A woman who doesn't want someone who's muscle development was aided by years of testosterone crashing into her at full pelt on a rugby field isn't a bigot for saying so. A beauty therapist who refuse to carry out a bikini wax on someone with male sexual organs isn't a bigot. Women who were raped by someone with a ***** and testicles are not bigots for not wanting someone with those same organs heading up a rape support charity or providing counselling services for them.

I daresay I'm a bigot for saying what I have have above but I stand by it. I've no issue with much of self ID, access to reassignment services and hormone therapy should be widespread, across a huge spectrum of areas trans people should have exactly the same rights as anyone else and I can't see why anyone would argue differently. However there can't just be a complete abandonment of biological reality and that means there has to be a tiny number of areas were exceptions are made. Simply screaming 'trans women are women' or 'trans men are men' is every bit as detrimental to the debate as people screaming 'there's only 2 genders'.

---

I don't disagree with you but, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I think people are more inclined to immediately think of the situations like you've said above which are extreme, rare but obviously well publicised. While in reality the vast majority of trans people are just trying to get by in their lives, like the rest of us.

The wording and terms debate is another all together and I see it as attempting to be inclusive while others, even those without skin in the game, can't seem to acknowledge any reason to ever use such terms. It's a shame that there's so much anger on both sides which tends to receive as much, if not more, coverage than the actual debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KWJ

I don't disagree with you but, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I think people are more inclined to immediately think of the situations like you've said above which are extreme, rare but obviously well publicised. While in reality the vast majority of trans people are just trying to get by in their lives, like the rest of us.

The wording and terms debate is another all together and I see it as attempting to be inclusive while others, even those without skin in the game, can't seem to acknowledge any reason to ever use such terms. It's a shame that there's so much anger on both sides which tends to receive as much, if not more, coverage than the actual debate.

---

:agree:

People seem determined to latch onto peripheral issues like toilet provision and rage about them. As if there's a vast conspiracy of male rapists determined to identify as women solely for the purpose of carrying out rapes in toilets. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

:agree:

People seem determined to latch onto peripheral issues like toilet provision and rage about them. As if there's a vast conspiracy of male rapists determined to identify as women solely for the purpose of carrying out rapes in toilets. :confused:

---

I think rapes is being used in the extremes of both sides of the argument, it's ridiculous. It's more just that most women asked don't want pre op trans men in there toilets or changing areas. It's about men silencing womens wishes.

A compromise would be making planning laws have ample unisex changing cubicles and toilets. It could be enforced as much as the need for disabled toilets. Might take a while to retrofit and a huge expense, but for new buildings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

Isn't that the whole crux of the debate though?

It's been accepted for quite literally millennia that there are multiple genders and that gender is fluid. It's ultimately a social construct and the removal of barriers in recent times to allow people to more freely express themselves is welcome. It's a small thing but my daughter loves dinosaurs; traditionally clothes featuring dinosaurs would have been in the boys section of a shop, now many shops have removed gender specific sections of their shop so she can wear what she likes without feeling she is wearing 'boys clothes'. That's a flippant example in a serious debate.

The argument now seems to be moving towards an idea of biological sex being a construct of society as well and that's a whole different matter. The term 'assigned at birth' points to that. Your sex isn't assigned at birth, it's defined based on biological observations. There really is only 3 possible outcomes to such observations, male, female and in a tiny percentage of cases intersex. Anyone should be able to choose to live their lives not bound by the social 'norms' of what is expected of men and women. Dress how you like, use what pronouns you like, call yourself what you like and forget all the hysteria and use whatever toilet you like as well. Do I believe though that trans men are wholly men or trans women are wholly women? No, I don't. A woman who doesn't want someone who's muscle development was aided by years of testosterone crashing into her at full pelt on a rugby field isn't a bigot for saying so. A beauty therapist who refuse to carry out a bikini wax on someone with male sexual organs isn't a bigot. Women who were raped by someone with a ***** and testicles are not bigots for not wanting someone with those same organs heading up a rape support charity or providing counselling services for them.

I daresay I'm a bigot for saying what I have have above but I stand by it. I've no issue with much of self ID, access to reassignment services and hormone therapy should be widespread, across a huge spectrum of areas trans people should have exactly the same rights as anyone else and I can't see why anyone would argue differently. However there can't just be a complete abandonment of biological reality and that means there has to be a tiny number of areas were exceptions are made. Simply screaming 'trans women are women' or 'trans men are men' is every bit as detrimental to the debate as people screaming 'there's only 2 genders'.

---

I think 99% of people would agree with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

:agree:

People seem determined to latch onto peripheral issues like toilet provision and rage about them. As if there's a vast conspiracy of male rapists determined to identify as women solely for the purpose of carrying out rapes in toilets. :confused:

---

Now I think that comment goes to the heart of the debate. A man says it's a peripheral issue. But many women disagree. The recent coverage of Primark's changing rooms policy and their reversal of it following harrassment of women is illustrative. I think the issue is exacerbated by the vagueness and fuzzyness about what being trans actually is. Added to that is the proposed legislation that largely strips out any process around changing gender. I genuinely believe that the majority of people are very supportive of what trans people go through. But I think that support is predicated on a vision of trans that is someone who is physically transitioning. And I really think the aggressive, sexualised stuff around 'suck my lady dick' is really setting the cause back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Now I think that comment goes to the heart of the debate. A man says it's a peripheral issue. But many women disagree. The recent coverage of Primark's changing rooms policy and their reversal of it following harrassment of women is illustrative. I think the issue is exacerbated by the vagueness and fuzzyness about what being trans actually is. Added to that is the proposed legislation that largely strips out any process around changing gender. I genuinely believe that the majority of people are very supportive of what trans people go through. But I think that support is predicated on a vision of trans that is someone who is physically transitioning. And I really think the aggressive, sexualised stuff around 'suck my lady dick' is really setting the cause back.

---

I really think that's unfair. Many women say it's a peripheral issue and many men disagree. As it happens, I don't have a particularly strong or well formed opinion on the subject, I just see loads of rage flying past on twitter, mainly, so I was agreeing with KWJ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

I really think that's unfair. Many women say it's a peripheral issue and many men disagree. As it happens, I don't have a particularly strong or well formed opinion on the subject, I just see loads of rage flying past on twitter, mainly, so I was agreeing with KWJ.

---

I think that's the danger of framing something as 'peripheral' when for many people it's not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Well born a female and transitioning to man

---

A man with a fanny, but getting rid of the breests. Each to their own I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby;7124635[B

]Considering the context of the discussion, I'm more concerned at the level of aggression in a person appointed by the SNP as an equalities officer than the semantics of the Record's definition of TERf or your views on who can and can't be a feminist.[/B]

---

I understand that, but the semantics are very important if the DR is writing up the story as someone who has made threats against women, when in actual fact they haven't. By extension then, their role as an Equalities officer is less important, their threats are not based against those of a certain gender, they are based against those of a certain ideology. Because as I said before, men and women can be TERFS and men and women can be feminists. That is just a fact.

They have distorted the truth to suit a certain story and headline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibby rae

I understand that, but the semantics are very important if the DR is writing up the story as someone who has made threats against women, when in actual fact they haven't. By extension then, their role as an Equalities officer is less important, their threats are not based against those of a certain gender, they are based against those of a certain ideology. Because as I said before, men and women can be TERFS and men and women can be feminists. That is just a fact.

They have distorted the truth to suit a certain story and headline.

---

I don't think an equalities officer for the government should be saying he wants to beat up men with a different viewpoint on social media either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think that's the danger of framing something as 'peripheral' when for many people it's not.

---

It's not a peripheral issue for feminist woman who have campaigned for their sex-based rights since they got the right to vote, however in the strange times that we now live in people pretend they don't know what a woman is to support the new ideology of transgenderism, which see's women as an identity category rather than as the reality of biological sex

Women were campaigning against the GRA not because they are transphobic or have anything against trans people but because in creating a situation where it is easier for men to identify as women and gain entry to woman only spaces, a loophole is being created for a small number of men who pose a threat to women to exploit.

When a woman is in a night club, and they want to get away from the advances of a man who comes onto them, what do they do? They go to the toilet, the reason for this is because it's what they see this as a safe space that is for women only that men can't enter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

I don't think an equalities officer for the government should be saying he wants to beat up men with a different viewpoint on social media either.

---

Obviously no government official should. But again, their role is irrelevent. And the reporting is inaccurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

It's not a peripheral issue for feminist woman who have campaigned for their sex-based rights since they got the right to vote, however in the strange times that we now live in people pretend they don't know what a woman is to support the new ideology of transgenderism, which see's women as an identity category rather than as the reality of biological sex

Women were campaigning against the GRA not because they are transphobic or have anything against trans people but because in creating a situation where it is easier for men to identify as women and gain entry to woman only spaces, a loophole is being created for a small number of men who pose a threat to women to exploit.

When a woman is in a night club, and they want to get away from the advances of a man who comes onto them, what do they do? They go to the toilet, the reason for this is because it's what they see this as a safe space that is for women only that men can't enter.

---

Research was carried out in advance of the GRA and found that there wasn't any evidence to suggest that men claimed to be transwomen for malicious reasons in women only spaces. They also found zero evidence to support that women were more likely to be sexually assaulted by trans women than women from birth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

It's not a peripheral issue for feminist woman who have campaigned for their sex-based rights since they got the right to vote, however in the strange times that we now live in people pretend they don't know what a woman is to support the new ideology of transgenderism, which see's women as an identity category rather than as the reality of biological sex

Women were campaigning against the GRA not because they are transphobic or have anything against trans people but because in creating a situation where it is easier for men to identify as women and gain entry to woman only spaces, a loophole is being created for a small number of men who pose a threat to women to exploit.

When a woman is in a night club, and they want to get away from the advances of a man who comes onto them, what do they do? They go to the toilet, the reason for this is because it's what they see this as a safe space that is for women only that men can't enter.

---

Are you speaking from experience? Because my experience of working in clubs was often said men would be pointed out, or the women would speak to staff.

Is there any evidence of men posing as women to attack women in gender neutral spaces?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibby rae

Are you speaking from experience? Because my experience of working in clubs was often said men would be pointed out, or the women would speak to staff.

Is there any evidence of men posing as women to attack women in gender neutral spaces?

---

As I've said attacks is used to defend the policy, they are unlikely. But the vast majority of trans women don't have their ***** removed. So even knowing their won't be attacked, women should be allowed to get naked in a gym changing room without someone naked with a ***** next to them. The majority of women polled always say they don't want this so why do we never listen to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibby rae

I understand that, but the semantics are very important if the DR is writing up the story as someone who has made threats against women, when in actual fact they haven't. By extension then, their role as an Equalities officer is less important, their threats are not based against those of a certain gender, they are based against those of a certain ideology. Because as I said before, men and women can be TERFS and men and women can be feminists. That is just a fact.

They have distorted the truth to suit a certain story and headline.

---

If we are doing semantics here then your statement that men can be feminists is very much debateable. It's not a "fact", in fact veryfar from it. https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...menbefeminists


"Brian Klocke of the National Organisation for Men against Sexism has argued: "Although I believe that men can be pro-feminist and anti-sexist, I do not believe we can be feminists in the strictest sense of the word in today's society. Men, in this patriarchal system, cannot remove themselves from their power and privilege in relation to women. To be a feminist one must be a member of the targeted group (ie a woman) not only as a matter of classification but as having one's directly-lived experience inform one's theory and praxis."

Women feminists have also voiced misgivings about men's involvement in the movement. Some men, they argue, automatically assume a dominant role when they become activists, claiming to be better feminists than feminist women, and failing to recognise and challenge their own sexist behaviour".

As for your "fact" about TERf, have a read of this (I think it's a good, basic explanation of the gender critical position) https://gcritical.org/gender-critical-or-terf/

"Most radical feminists do not accept that men can be “feminists” at all (even if they are allies) because they cannot experience the oppression women feel. For this reason, men cannot be radical feminists. If anyone tells you a man is a TERF, that person has no idea what radical feminism, or a TERF, is".

An interesting juxtaposition, a man (I assume you are?) deciding unequivocally who can be a feminist and deflecting from a hate based attack against women with a particular ideological stance. Does that not sail close to the wind in terms of misogyny?

On that note, can a fully transitioned transgender woman become a feminist? My first thoughts are aye, of course they can.

My family member was born female, transitioned and is now a bloke, a gay bloke. I find it all confusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

A man with a fanny, but getting rid of the breests. Each to their own I suppose.

---

pronouns are nuts / nuttiest / nuttier

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim44

I don’t know if this is appropriate here, but here goes. On ‘Pointless’ there are twins, one male, one female. By my assessment, the girl is lesbian and the guy is homosexual. Would this be an expected sexual orientation? Sorry, if I haven’t phrased my question well.

---

I’m interested to hear more about this assessment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim44

I don’t know if this is appropriate here, but here goes. On ‘Pointless’ there are twins, one male, one female. By my assessment, the girl is lesbian and the guy is homosexual. Would this be an expected sexual orientation? Sorry, if I haven’t phrased my question well.

---

Possibly one of the weirdest posts I have ever seen on these boards :confused:

https://archive.ph/IzEGs

The polls in that article are interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allmodcons

Possibly one of the weirdest posts I have ever seen on these boards :confused:

---

Yep.

I saw the people referred to and the post is just lazy stereotypes.

I saw 2 nice, normal people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

https://archive.ph/IzEGs

The polls in that article are interesting.

---

Thanks for posting that. Very good piece from Rowling which you would hope will (along with those polls) give Sturgeon pause for thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Thanks for posting that. Very good piece from Rowling which you would hope will (along with those polls) give Sturgeon pause for thought.

---

It is a well reasoned argument from Rowling.

It’s scary that a minority group of misguided extremists are having such a big influence on government.

It’s also very scary that women expressing views, like Rowling, have been targeted by haters and stigmatised for daring to oppose the will of a lunatic fringe of activists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

I think 99% of people would agree with this.

---

Actually, I don't.

I don't see how anyone can say that it's been 'accepted for millennia' that gender is fluid and that there are an infinite number of genders.

Stating something like that would most likely have had your local priest leading a procession with pitchforks, calling you the spawn of the devil and demanding you be burnt at the stake.


Attachment 26244

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith_M

Actually, I don't.

I don't see how anyone can say that it's been 'accepted for millennia' that gender is fluid and that there are an infinite number of genders.

Stating something like that would most likely have had your local priest leading a procession with pitchforks, calling you the spawn of the devil and demanding you be burnt at the stake.


Attachment 26244

---

It's perhaps not been the case in the western world or the world of the Abrahamic religions but elsewhere in the worl it has long been the case.

The Hirjas in India, ancient Egyptians, the Mahu in Hawaii and multiple other examples across South America, Asia and Africa.

Gender fluidity isn't something that was invented in the 21st century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

It's perhaps not been the case in the western world or the world of the Abrahamic religions but elsewhere in the worl it has long been the case.

The Hirjas in India, ancient Egyptians, the Mahu in Hawaii and multiple other examples across South America, Asia and Africa.

Gender fluidity isn't something that was invented in the 21st century.

---

So are you saying that the western religions have been wrong all along and are finally catching up with their much more understanding counterparts elsewhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith_M

So are you saying that the western religions have been wrong all along and are finally catching up with their much more understanding counterparts elsewhere?

---

I don't think those who control large denominations of Judaism, Islam or Christianity are catching up at all. They are all still needlessly obsessed with that people are getting up to in their bedrooms and the appendages associated with that. Clericalism still abounds though so I'm not holding my breath that we will see change any time soon. On that front I've never argued anything other than the Church (and in turn other organisations with similar viewpoints) is massively out of step.

The point is that we tend to view the world from a Eurocentric viewpoint and view all the chat around gender fluidity and the like as something knew when really it's nothing of the sort. On the flip side the argument that one can wholly and completely change their sex is a fresh argument and really what the current debate is dealing with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith_M

So are you saying that the western religions have been wrong all along and are finally catching up with their much more understanding counterparts elsewhere?

---

I'm not sure we should be looking at any religion for guidance on matters of gender, biology or sex.

But gender fluidity has been around in Western cultures for millennia. Ancient Rome, center of the western world for centuries had a much more open view to gender and sexuality than Christianity or Islam have allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

It is a well reasoned argument from Rowling.

It’s scary that a minority group of misguided extremists are having such a big influence on government.

It’s also very scary that women expressing views, like Rowling, have been targeted by haters and stigmatised for daring to oppose the will of a lunatic fringe of activists.

---

The article really underlines just how absurdly meagre the requirements will be to enable a person to amend their gender...especially, as she points out, when you consider nobody has actually been able to define what living in an acquired gender actually means.

Hopefully the high profile front page coverage the Sunday Times is giving this will prompt some serious and overdue scrutiny of SG policy here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

https://archive.ph/IzEGs

The polls in that article are interesting.

---

Thanks for posting this, Rowling articulates well the concerns that many women have about the GRA which would be seen as a way for some predatory men to gain access to vulnerable woman, in spaces such as public bathrooms, changing rooms, domestic violence refuges and prison cells etc. It seems like women's safety concerns are forgotten by trying to make it easier for trans people to self ID.

I'm still trying to find evidence, or figures that support the fear of women in changing rooms being assaulted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

I'm still trying to find evidence, or figures that support the fear of women in changing rooms being assaulted.

---

Why does it have to be the fear of being assaulted. What if they just don't want someone with a ***** naked next to them in the gym changing room. Most women asked in the last couple of polls put up say they don't want pre op men in changing rooms. Should we listen to them, or tell them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Why does it have to be the fear of being assaulted. What if they just don't want someone with a ***** naked next to them in the gym changing room. Most women asked in the last couple of polls put up say they don't want pre op men in changing rooms. Should we listen to them, or tell them

---

Evidence? How often has this happened?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

I'm still trying to find evidence, or figures that support the fear of women in changing rooms being assaulted.

---

Justifiable basis for fear here, as Rowling points out:

https://archive.ph/RobDS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Evidence? How often has this happened?

---

Evidence of what, do you want actual figures for how many trans women use the gym ha?

It's a fact most gyms have open plan changing rooms and also most trans women chose to keep there *****.

Scottish greens have suspended association with Welsh and English greens. It's a split due to Scottish greens thinking the other two are transphobic. I thought they were mainly for environmental issues. Wonder if there will be a splinter party in Scotland that just want environmental issues and are more mainstream on other issues.

https://mobile.twitter.com/FeministR...76107736051713

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Scottish greens have suspended association with Welsh and English greens. It's a split due to Scottish greens thinking the other two are transphobic. I thought they were mainly for environmental issues. Wonder if there will be a splinter party in Scotland that just want environmental issues and are more mainstream on other issues.

https://mobile.twitter.com/FeministR...76107736051713

---

There have been transphobia problems in the GPEW for years. It's not as if this wasn't expected.

As for the Scottish party, AFAIK the vote was virtually unopposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

There have been transphobia problems in the GPEW for years. It's not as if this wasn't expected.

As for the Scottish party, AFAIK the vote was virtually unopposed.

---

What do you mean by transphobic though. Is it just a difference of opinions like jk Rowling has, as many don't believe that it transphobic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

What do you mean by transphobic though. Is it just a difference of opinions like jk Rowling has, as many don't believe that it transphobic.

---

This is a good place to start.

https://twitter.com/LGBTIQAGreens/status/1581677207625207808?t=onmAxkmp08JFwev3WyNrAg&s=19

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Scottish greens have suspended association with Welsh and English greens. It's a split due to Scottish greens thinking the other two are transphobic. I thought they were mainly for environmental issues. Wonder if there will be a splinter party in Scotland that just want environmental issues and are more mainstream on other issues.

https://mobile.twitter.com/FeministR...76107736051713

---

Scottish Greens are simply toxic. A real error of judgement by Sturgeon to hand them a position of influence for the sake of her indy majority.

[QUOTE=Stairway 2 7;7131863]What do you mean by transphobic though. Is it just a difference of opinions like jk Rowling has, as many don't believe that it transphobic.[/QUOTE

I suspect that anyone who doesn't share the views of the leadership are labelled as transphobic.

Good way to get rid of a large number of Green voters in one fell swoop. Turkeys and Christmas spring to mind

[QUOTE=superfurryhibby;7131970]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

What do you mean by transphobic though. Is it just a difference of opinions like jk Rowling has, as many don't believe that it transphobic.[/QUOTE

I suspect that anyone who doesn't share the views of the leadership are labelled as transphobic.

---

That does seem to be the case with this quite often.

[QUOTE=Since90+2;7132137]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

That does seem to be the case with this quite often.

---

I find it quite ironic that folk looking for society to accept their alternative view have real difficulty accepting alternative views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This is a good place to start.

https://twitter.com/LGBTIQAGreens/st...ev3WyNrAg&s=19

---

That just seems to be a number of people saying a problem is present but no details seem to be supplied.


:dunno:

[QUOTE=beensaidbefore;7132152]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Since90+2

I find it quite ironic that folk looking for society to accept their alternative view have real difficulty accepting alternative views.

---

Indeed.

[QUOTE=Since90+2;7132137]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

That does seem to be the case with this quite often.

---

Motorcyclist Who Identifies As Bicyclist Sets Cycling World Record

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipvesqJP1e4

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-b2208312.html

Trans comedian on Channel 4 strips naked and plays the keyboard with her willy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeping giant

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-b2208312.html

Trans comedian on Channel 4 strips naked and plays the keyboard with her *****.

Edit. Is ***** seriously blocked ?

---

I'm no bothered or shocked if someone gets their welt out on TV, but it's hardly inspiring or groundbreaking like some are saying

Did Jerry Sadowitz not get cancelled for getting his c*** out earlier in the year? Sure then we were told it was outdated and tiresome because it had been done before as well as being sexually threatening.

Is a ***** only threatening and showing it off unsolicited only offensive when it's a cis man doing it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

Did Jerry Sadowitz not get cancelled for getting his c*** out earlier in the year? Sure then we were told it was outdated and tiresome because it had been done before as well as being sexually threatening.

Is a ***** only threatening and showing it off unsolicited only offensive when it's a cis man doing it?

---

https://youtu.be/59kf86v_Cpc

It's a great example of culture war/ cancel culture at work. The people angriest about this would often be really quick to defend Sadowitz, the people giving it the old "stunning and brave" patter would are much more comfortable chucking the cishet man under the bus.

One side does it with false family values, and the other with pseudo-progressive zeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

Did Jerry Sadowitz not get cancelled for getting his c*** out earlier in the year? Sure then we were told it was outdated and tiresome because it had been done before as well as being sexually threatening.

Is a ***** only threatening and showing it off unsolicited only offensive when it's a cis man doing it?

---

The way it's being reported sounds quite Orwellian 'her *****'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92iJCNpxFm4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

Did Jerry Sadowitz not get cancelled for getting his c*** out earlier in the year? Sure then we were told it was outdated and tiresome because it had been done before as well as being sexually threatening.

Is a ***** only threatening and showing it off unsolicited only offensive when it's a cis man doing it?

---

He called Sunak a Pa***

SNP minister resigns over gender recognition plans:

SNP minister resigns over gender recognition plans - BBC News

Finally, some kick back from within government over this.

First post in this thread. Does anyone have a link to a good explainer about these issues?
I look on and just cannot get my head round the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

SNP minister resigns over gender recognition plans:

SNP minister resigns over gender recognition plans - BBC News

Finally, some kick back from within government over this.

---

I'm not surprised at Ash Denham's stance. Her record on other feminist-related issues, such as sex worker rights, is very poor IMO. That said, to leave it this late is pretty appalling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'm not surprised at Ash Denham's stance. Her record on other feminist-related issues, such as sex worker rights, is very poor IMO. That said, to leave it this late is pretty appalling.

---

She's supporting most feminist groups views here, but I agree scot govs previous on sex work was very poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'm not surprised at Ash Denham's stance. Her record on other feminist-related issues, such as sex worker rights, is very poor IMO. That said, to leave it this late is pretty appalling.

---

Kate Forbes being away is convenient for her career then. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

First post in this thread. Does anyone have a link to a good explainer about these issues?
I look on and just cannot get my head round the discussion.

---

The trans debate: a fiercely-fought battleground in the nation’s culture wars | The Week UK

Things may well have moved on since this was written but I recall it providing quite a good summary.

One thing that I find a bit confusing about all of this is the requirement (in both old and proposed new legislation) for someone to have lived in their acquired gender for a certain period of time. What does that entail? How do you define living in your acquired gender?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sergio sledge

One thing that I find a bit confusing about all of this is the requirement (in both old and proposed new legislation) for someone to have lived in their acquired gender for a certain period of time. What does that entail? How do you define living in your acquired gender?

---

You'll search in vain for an answer to that question. Just one of numerous reasons this bill doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Once passed it means simply that anyone who says they are a woman IS a woman, full stop.

I sincerely hope Regan isn't the only SNP minister to put her head above the parapet and go against the wishes of 'real feminist' Sturgeon. You can tell by the FM's icy response how much being disagreed with riles her.

Jaime Greens voting with Scottish Govt. I’ve no problem with people voting against the whip on this issue. Cabinet posts have to be given up though.
It will pass tonight and then the issue will disappear because not that much is actually changing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...0977c85dd9.jpg

Sailed through. On those numbers there must have been a lot of opposition support.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...0977c85dd9.jpg

Sailed through. On those numbers there must have been a lot of opposition support.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Labour and Lib Dems supported. Tories had a free vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Labour and Lib Dems supported. Tories had a free vote.

---

Probably sums up why it hasn’t really got much future as a political issue. Even the Tories can’t be bothered opposing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

First post in this thread. Does anyone have a link to a good explainer about these issues?
I look on and just cannot get my head round the discussion.

---

Pretty much where I am too, I've read the whole thread but, I'm no further forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HUTCHYHIBBY

Pretty much where I am too, I've read the whole thread but, I'm no further forward.

---

If that’s the case then I doubt any further reading will help develop any deeper insight. There’s enough viewpoints and articles on this thread not sure what more reading could do to help.

On the whole it been a pretty decent discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

If that’s the case then I doubt any further reading will help develop any deeper insight. There’s enough viewpoints and articles on this thread not sure what more reading could do to help.

On the whole it been a pretty decent discussion.

---

Aye, I could probably delve deeper if I was that bothered, turns out that I don't think I am.

saw this on fb is this what it's all about, if so what's the problem ? :confused:

https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...2A&oe=635F36C2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875

saw this on fb is this what it's all about, if so what's the problem ? :confused:

https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...2A&oe=635F36C2

---

Probably best no to get info from Facebook, there's obviously much more changes than that. I'm not saying for better or worse, but it's easy to Google or read through thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Probably best no to get info from Facebook, there's obviously much more changes than that. I'm not saying for better or worse, but it's easy to Google or read through thread

---

possibly, like hutchyhibby this is only my 2nd look at this whole thread, i think i've read ermm three posts overall near the start, it's not really bothering me that much we're all jock tamsons bairns and all that, the only objection i do have even remotely to do with this whole trans thing is the unfair advantages in sport, especially the swimming, so is that table wrong then, or just not full ? i appreciate it probably doesn't cover everything.

apols, you answered my question on that table not being the full shebang etc but i did ask if that's all it's about, now i know it's obviously not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875

possibly, like hutchyhibby this is only my 2nd look at this whole thread, i think i've read ermm three posts overall near the start, it's not really bothering me that much we're all jock tamsons bairns and all that, the only objection i do have even remotely to do with this whole trans thing is the unfair advantages in sport, especially the swimming, so is that table wrong then, or just not full ? i appreciate it probably doesn't cover everything

---

The majority of people polled usually only have a few objections sport, changing rooms, rape crisis and length of time before changing.

People are probably stuck with there opinions. In Ireland where it has changed they are still arguing this week about sport so I'm sure it will roll on, especially the next time a female is battered by a trans female in the ring or cage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875

possibly, like hutchyhibby this is only my 2nd look at this whole thread, i think i've read ermm three posts overall near the start, it's not really bothering me that much we're all jock tamsons bairns and all that, the only objection i do have even remotely to do with this whole trans thing is the unfair advantages in sport, especially the swimming, so is that table wrong then, or just not full ? i appreciate it probably doesn't cover everything.

apols, you answered my question on that table not being the full shebang etc but i did ask if that's all it's about, now i know it's obviously not

---

That aspect of things (ie whether anyone is trans or not) has got next to nothing to do with why there's so much controversy around this bill. It's long fought-for women's rights (and their potential erosion) which is the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Labour and Lib Dems supported. Tories had a free vote.

---

For once the Tories are the ones showing common sense here.

I see Sarwar is saying Labour will be seeking amendments at the next stage.

The most telling stat is that nine SNP MSPs defied the whip. By SNP standards that's a major rebellion...in fact probably unprecedented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

For once the Tories are the ones showing common sense here.

I see Sarwar is saying Labour will be seeking amendments at the next stage.

The most telling stat is that nine SNP MSPs defied the whip. By SNP standards that's a major rebellion...in fact probably unprecedented.

---

Surprised they forced the whip on this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'm not surprised at Ash Denham's stance. Her record on other feminist-related issues, such as sex worker rights, is very poor IMO. That said, to leave it this late is pretty appalling.

---

What did she say about sex worker rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Surprised they forced the whip on this

---

SNP suffers biggest ever backbench revolt over transgender bill | Transgender | The Guardian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Surprised they forced the whip on this

---

Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LewysGot2

What did she say about sex worker rights?

---

She is trying to introduce the Nordic Model, which has been rejected 5 (perhaps more) times in Scotland, and which sex workers throughout the world are against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

This is such a niche issue I doubt it moves more than a handful of votes either way in any election.
And like any issue in Scotland, the only reason it’s getting amplified is because the two Indy parties are promoting it so the unionists have decided to oppose it. And you can see that even on this thread. It’s quite sad really as it is a complex issue for a tiny amount of people and they don’t really need it being weaponised in the Indy debate.
It’s like Celtic and Sevco fans waiting to see which side of any conflict the other set of fans are about to take so that they can oppose them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I decided to go to the start of this thread to read up on the subject close to the hearts of, well, not many folk.

Turns out the opposition parties have come onboard, and even the Tories are not opposing it anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Surprised they forced the whip on this

---

That surprised me too. This issue goes beyond party politics and a free vote would have seemed the more sensible route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

I decided to go to the start of this thread to read up on the subject close to the hearts of, well, not many folk.

Turns out the opposition parties have come onboard, and even the Tories are not opposing it anymore.

---

It was only stage one where the only option is to support the bill or vote it down. The battleground will be stages two and three where the Bill can be amended.

Good to know Scottish government minister has a conscience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

It was only stage one where the only option is to support the bill or vote it down. The battleground will be stages two and three where the Bill can be amended.

---

I expect amendments from Labour, Lib dems, and the Tories, with the latter finally voting against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

That surprised me too. This issue goes beyond party politics and a free vote would have seemed the more sensible route.

---

It was part of the manifesto. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

It was part of the manifesto. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

---

They committed to deliberated process and discussion with all groups including feminists, they say this hasn't happened

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2022/01/14/gender-recognition-reform-what-happened-to-the-manifesto/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

They committed to deliberated process and discussion with all groups including feminists, they say this hasn't happened

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org...the-manifesto/

---

I'm sure they had the opportunity to have their say during the long process that's unfolded. 32,000 responses in two consultations. I'm sure all the folk that wanted 121s with Government minsters wouldn't get a seat at the table, but a representative of the group would/should have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

It was only stage one where the only option is to support the bill or vote it down. The battleground will be stages two and three where the Bill can be amended.

---

Things will almost certainly get more heated, but despite last night's unprecedented backbench SNP rebellion, the bill will, sadly, still pass.

The hope, however, must be that the higher profile given to an issue that a majority remain unclear about will awaken more folk to just how polarising it is and how 'real feminist' Sturgeon is riding roughshod over women's rights for the sake (as this article argues) of being seen as progressive:

Editor's Column: The Right to Be (holyrood.com)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Things will almost certainly get more heated, but despite last night's unprecedented backbench SNP rebellion, the bill will, sadly, still pass.

The hope, however, must be that the higher profile given to an issue that a majority remain unclear about will awaken more folk to just how polarising it is and how 'real feminist' Sturgeon is riding roughshod over women's rights for the sake (as this article argues) of being seen as progressive:

Editor's Column: The Right to Be (holyrood.com)

---

It will pass because people voted for it. That’s democracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

It will pass because people voted for it. That’s democracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

A cowardly vote IMHO, brought about by some hardline lobbyists with a lop-sided amount of influence. Mandy Rhodes (in another excellent article, linked below) puts it better than me:

"One day we may reflect on the wilful stance of politicians and policymakers to engage in any form of reasonable debate for fear of their partiality and ignorance being exposed, and their superficial understanding of the law and science revealed. We may reasonably ask why MPs and MSPs with a mandate to serve all, were persuaded by powerful lobbyists to eschew their responsibility for the many and only speak to and for the few."

It's time we stopped allowing lobby groups to drive the debate on gender (holyrood.com)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

A cowardly vote IMHO, brought about by some hardline lobbyists with a lop-sided amount of influence. Mandy Rhodes (in another excellent article, linked below) puts it better than me:

"One day we may reflect on the wilful stance of politicians and policymakers to engage in any form of reasonable debate for fear of their partiality and ignorance being exposed, and their superficial understanding of the law and science revealed. We may reasonably ask why MPs and MSPs with a mandate to serve all, were persuaded by powerful lobbyists to eschew their responsibility for the many and only speak to and for the few."

It's time we stopped allowing lobby groups to drive the debate on gender (holyrood.com)

---

Mandy Rhodes has previous for putting the boot in to things she doesn't agree with.

One.of the things I really like about the Scottish Parliament is the fact that it gives access to the legislative process to individuals and marginalised groups in a way that we didn't have previously. I have colleagues I'm England who are jealous of the relative ease with which we can do that. I hope that part of our system never changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Mandy Rhodes has previous for putting the boot in to things she doesn't agree with.

One.of the things I really like about the Scottish Parliament is the fact that it gives access to the legislative process to individuals and marginalised groups in a way that we didn't have previously. I have colleagues I'm England who are jealous of the relative ease with which we can do that. I hope that part of our system never changes.

---

I think that's right to a point. But the argument being made by some groups is that access is constrained by whether you are in or out. One of the complaints about the Third Sector in Scotland is co-option by access and funding. But if you are out you are out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Mandy Rhodes has previous for putting the boot in to things she doesn't agree with.

One.of the things I really like about the Scottish Parliament is the fact that it gives access to the legislative process to individuals and marginalised groups in a way that we didn't have previously. I have colleagues I'm England who are jealous of the relative ease with which we can do that. I hope that part of our system never changes.

---

What journalist doesn't?

There's a tendency on here among SNP devotees, to adopt a 'non story, nothing to see here approach' to anything critical of Sturgeon/the Scottish government. Rhodes' piece isn't a throwaway rant for the sake of being contrary, it's a well-written, considered piece which gets to the heart of why this bill (which clearly transcends party politics even for previously well-drilled SNP MSPs) is quite simply bad law and deserves to be called out as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

What journalist doesn't?

There's a tendency on here among SNP devotees, to adopt a 'non story, nothing to see here approach' to anything critical of the Scottish government. Rhodes' piece isn't a throwaway rant for the sake of being contrary, it's a well-written, considered piece which gets to the heart of why this bill (which clearly transcends party politics even for previously well-drilled SNP MSPs) is quite simply bad law and deserves to be called out as such.

---

I'm not an SNP devotee, nor a voter.

My issue is with the fact that she decries the lobbying (I prefer the term "advocacy") process that she herself has been part of in the past. Presumably, she is in favour of the opponents the bill doing their own lobbying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'm not an SNP devotee, nor a voter.

My issue is with the fact that she decries the lobbying (I prefer the term "advocacy") process that she herself has been part of in the past. Presumably, she is in favour of the opponents the bill doing their own lobbying.

---

Yes, sorry, that was more of a general observation of a tend to play the man not the ball when it comes to criticism of Sturgeon. There's often little heed paid to what the critic is saying and their views are simply written off.

Here's another spot-on piece which addresses the concerns of many. I know she's Labour to the core, but I worked with her a good many years ago and know something of her background. If anyone is well placed to comment on women's rights it's Susan. The lived experience of so many women is what gives them the right to fear this legislation and I get the sense it's easier for men to brush off such concerns because they're simply unaware of what's at stake. Those with daughters may feel otherwise:

Transgender debate in Scotland: Nicola Sturgeon can't ignore voices of young women deeply concerned by self-ID plans – Susan Dalgety | The Scotsman

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...cola-sturgeon/