The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

I see this happened over 4 years ago under the current system in England. Did the person have a GRC?

---

It says in the article they had started transitioning, so no. They would only get a GRC after a few years of living in their acquired gender, having a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and likely taking some strong hormone drugs.

While in Scotland you can sit at home and do nothing for 3 months and hey presto you are now a woman because you say you are.

See the issue?

You seem quick to defend the SG, but why do you personally support allowing convicted sex offenders to get a GRC with no checks?

I am against it because these people have been convicted of some terrible crimes often involving lying and manipulation, so even if they think they will get the tiniest of advantage over a potential victim they will exploit that.

Or maybe you don't support it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

It says in the article they had started transitioning, so no. They would only get a GRC after a few years of living in their acquired gender, having a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and likely taking some strong hormone drugs.

While in Scotland you can sit at home and do nothing for 3 months and hey presto you are now a woman because you say you are.

See the issue?

You seem quick to defend the SG, but why do you personally support allowing convicted sex offenders to get a GRC with no checks?

I am against it because these people have been convicted of some terrible crimes often involving lying and manipulation, so even if they think they will get the tiniest of advantage over a potential victim they will exploit that.

Or maybe you don't support it?

---

I don't think I've ever said I support or don't support it as I suppose I'm one of those who don't see it as a pressing issue. This thread has been very informative though.

Lots of things to be taken into consideration and I can understand both sides have their views, and think that they're correct.

Sometimes the facts do get skewed with all the noise around though.

Fulham v Spurs next. See ya. 👍

A male Edinburgh prisoner called Albert Cabellero who abducted and raped his care worker, has asked to be called Claire and wants transferred to a female prison before being released.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news...590?int_source

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

A male Edinburgh prisoner called Albert Cabellero who abducted and raped his care worker, has changed name to Claire and wants moved to a female prison before being released.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news...590?int_source

---

Something that they could have done anyway under already existing laws across the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

A male Edinburgh prisoner called Albert Cabellero who abducted and raped his care worker, has asked to be called Claire and wants transferred to a female prison before being released.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news...590?int_source

---

I used to work with him a really nasty person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Something that they could have done anyway under already existing laws across the UK.

---

Well, nothing can be done under the new law, because it didn't make it into law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Betty Boop

I used to work with him a really nasty person.

---

I'm just glad that the GRRB was blocked, because any law that makes it easier to Gender Self-ID gives greater scope for predators, it really would have been like a scene out of, the Silence of the Lambs, if a nasty man like Albert Cabellero ever entered a female only space.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...carer-29015322

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

I'm just glad that the GRRB was blocked, because any law that makes it easier to Gender Self-ID gives greater scope for predators, it really would have been like a scene out of, the Silence of the Lambs, if a nasty man like Albert Cabellero ever entered a female only space.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...carer-29015322

---

Pointing this out tends to get shot down by supporters of the bill who argue women are unlikely to be put in danger. But why create such a potential problem in the first place by removing all safeguards around obtaining a GRC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Pointing this out tends to get shot down by supporters of the bill who argue women are unlikely to be put in danger. But why create such a potential problem in the first place by removing all safeguards around obtaining a GRC?

---

I'm not sure if removing the the safeguards makes it a critical social justice policy, a woke policy or identity politics, so I just think of it as the Alice in Wonderland GRRB, because thinking that a policy that is open to everyone would only be applied for by genuine people who are struggling with gender dysphoria is removed from reality.

Society is divided into categories based on sex for a reason, namely the protection of women and children, saying that these categories don't matter is like saying woman and children's single sex protection is not important. For the majority of people it is which is why the safeguards need to be kept in place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Well, nothing can be done under the new law, because it didn't make it into law.

---

My point is, the new law wouldn't allow people like that to do anything that they couldn't already do under currently enforced legislation across the UK as a whole. Which pretty much rubbishes the Tory excuses for blocking the bill, which would explain why none of them are willing to appear in front of the equalities committee to justify the measures taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

Society is divided into categories based on sex for a reason, namely the protection of women and children,

---

You sure about that?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

My point is, the new law wouldn't allow people like that to do anything that they couldn't already do under currently enforced legislation across the UK as a whole. Which pretty much rubbishes the Tory excuses for blocking the bill, which would explain why none of them are willing to appear in front of the equalities committee to justify the measures taken.

---

The legislation fundamentally changed how people get the certificate. How can you say it changes nothing?

Rapist guilty of attacking women before gender change - BBC News

Will this transgender rapist go to a women's prison? And, reading between the lines, was the decision to start the process of gender re-assignment made with a view to avoiding a men's prison?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

The legislation fundamentally changed how people get the certificate. How can you say it changes nothing?

---

The legislation means people can get it in less time and at a younger age. It doesn't grant special privileges that allow people to commit illegal acts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

I'm not sure if removing the the safeguards makes it a critical social justice policy, a woke policy or identity politics, so I just think of it as the Alice in Wonderland GRRB, because thinking that a policy that is open to everyone would only be applied for by genuine people who are struggling with gender dysphoria is removed from reality.

Society is divided into categories based on sex for a reason, namely the protection of women and children, saying that these categories don't matter is like saying woman and children's single sex protection is not important. For the majority of people it is which is why the safeguards need to be kept in place.

---

I think that's a fair point. It would only take one assault from a sexual predator who has taken advantage of the new safeguard-free legislation for its folly to be exposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

The legislation means people can get it in less time and at a younger age. It doesn't grant special privileges that allow people to commit illegal acts.

---

Nobody, as far as I'm aware, is arguing that it does. It does, however, make it vastly more straightforward for somebody who would wish to use it for nefarious purposes to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Nobody, as far as I'm aware, is arguing that it does. It does, however, make it vastly more straightforward for somebody who would wish to use it for nefarious purposes to do so.

---

What I don't get in this discussion is what difference does letting trans people get the 'correct' paperwork that bit easier and more aligned to WHO guidelines actually make.

What's the specific issue?

As it stands, if I wanted to stick on a dress and go into the womens toilets I could do that bit of paper or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Nobody, as far as I'm aware, is arguing that it does. It does, however, make it vastly more straightforward for somebody who would wish to use it for nefarious purposes to do so.

---

Which takes us back to the argument of why anybody would even bother to do so. Getting a certificate just so they can legally access a place in order to do something illegal anyway. It doesn't make any sense, which is why similar legislation that has been enforced in other countries hasn't led to any notable increase in such instances.

The Spanish Government put a very similar law into force on the same day the Scottish Parliament attempted to do so, minus all of the media hyperbole. But then again, Spain isn't a devolved parliament caught up in a constitutional game with a more powerful government looking to create distractions from their own corruption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

As it stands, if I wanted to stick on a dress and go into the womens toilets I could do that bit of paper or not.

---

Correct. The argument that it makes it "easier" to do this is nonsensical. Nobody is standing outside the toilet door asking people to provide their gender ID certificates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Correct. The argument that it makes it "easier" to do this is nonsensical. Nobody is standing outside the toilet door asking people to provide their gender ID certificates.

---

How is a self ID process with unenforceable penalties and vague criteria the same as two year process which required medical engagement? Why do care so little for the views of people raising concerns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

How is a self ID process with unenforceable penalties and vague criteria the same as two year process which required medical engagement? Why do care so little for the views of people raising concerns?

---

Defend the SG at all costs. Even if you don't have an opinion it seems, as long as the SG aren't seen in a bad light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

How is a self ID process with unenforceable penalties and vague criteria the same as two year process which required medical engagement? Why do care so little for the views of people raising concerns?

---

What "unenforceable penalties"? Nothing about the GRC itself has changed. What this legislation does change is how they can be obtained. But the same laws would still apply to people with GRCs as they have done previously. Nothing in that regard has changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Defend the SG at all costs. Even if you don't have an opinion it seems, as long as the SG aren't seen in a bad light.

---

As opposed to attacking the SG at all costs and forever viewing them in a bad light? Even if it means beating down on minority groups with zero justification for doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

What I don't get in this discussion is what difference does letting trans people get the 'correct' paperwork that bit easier and more aligned to WHO guidelines actually make.

What's the specific issue?

As it stands, if I wanted to stick on a dress and go into the womens toilets I could do that bit of paper or not.

---

They guy at the door would stop you to check all your paperwork was in order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

What I don't get in this discussion is what difference does letting trans people get the 'correct' paperwork that bit easier and more aligned to WHO guidelines actually make.

What's the specific issue?

As it stands, if I wanted to stick on a dress and go into the womens toilets I could do that bit of paper or not.

---

Yep.

You might get done for breach of the peace (or worse), depending on what you did there, or the reaction of any occupants. But that's nothing to do with the GRA or the GRRA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

What I don't get in this discussion is what difference does letting trans people get the 'correct' paperwork that bit easier and more aligned to WHO guidelines actually make.

What's the specific issue?

As it stands, if I wanted to stick on a dress and go into the womens toilets I could do that bit of paper or not.

---

You wouldn't be a legal woman. And what would be your purpose in doing so?

I think it's easy for men to underestimate the importance of female-only spaces to women as a source of safety and comfort. My wife, for example, recalls being followed in town by a creepy bloke when she was a teenager and she took refuge in the women's changing rooms in a department store until he had gone. It may not be a protected space in the sense that you're stopped at the door and asked for ID, but we're not talking extremes here when it comes to sexual predators. Plenty of these sort of blokes don't take their creepiness beyond voyeurism and will in the vast majority of cases not actually follow a woman into a female changing room. However, if all that's required under the bill is a claim that you've lived as a woman for a couple of months to grant you access to these changing rooms then it's not beyond the realms of possibility that such lax requirements will be exploited. And you certainly wouldn't need to 'stick on a dress' to do so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

However, if all that's required under the bill is a claim that you've lived as a woman for a couple of months to grant you access to these changing rooms then it's not beyond the realms of possibility that such lax requirements will be exploited. And you certainly wouldn't need to 'stick on a dress' to do so...

---

Well if they're not going to go to the trouble of sticking on a dress, then why would they go to the trouble of waiting 2 months to get a certificate, that nobody is going to ask them for anyway, when approaching the female space?

I'm sorry, but these "concerns" are completely irrational and ignore how things really work in practice. The right wing hyperbole in the media has a lot to answer for. But then again, they've been getting away with it throughout history whenever it's came to beating down on minority groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

As opposed to attacking the SG at all costs and forever viewing them in a bad light? Even if it means beating down on minority groups with zero justification for doing so.

---

I am not sure how times this needs said, I don't have a problem with trans people. I have a problem with convicted sex offenders who can change gender without any checks. I also have a problem with a 16yr olds going on a life altering path after potentially literally sitting in their bedroom for a few months and then deciding they are a woman.

How does allowing a convicted sex offender a GRC with no checks advance Trans rights? Can you explain that one to me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

I am not sure how times this needs said, I don't have a problem with trans people. I have a problem with convicted sex offenders who can change gender without any checks. I also have a problem with a 16yr olds going on a life altering path after potentially literally sitting in their bedroom for a few months and then deciding they are a woman.

How does allowing a convicted sex offender a GRC with no checks advance Trans rights? Can you explain that one to me?

---

There are checks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Yep.

You might get done for breach of the peace (or worse), depending on what you did there, or the reaction of any occupants. But that's nothing to do with the GRA or the GRRA.

---

Not quite. If I walk into a women's changing room and get my kit off I could well be done for breach or indecent exposure. If I have certificate and do exactly the same would there be any law broken?