The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

There are checks.

---

There's a risk assessment. What other 'checks'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

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.

---

Because the certificate would entitle them to be there if challenged. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

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?

---

Women's prison and isolated in solitary apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

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?

---

If someone complains , and it meets the criteria for those offences, then yes.

If a woman undresses in a female changing room, and exposes herself "indecently" (subjective term, of course), the same would apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

There are checks.

---

If the convicted sex offender who has very likely been convicted of an offence involving lying and manipulation volunteers they are applying for a GRC, which I am sure they all would do.......

But how does this advance Trans Rights which is what the aim of the Bill is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

There's a risk assessment. What other 'checks'.

---

I was pulling the poster up for saying "there are no checks". Which is incorrect.

Whether these checks are appropriate and sufficient..... that was last week's discussion :greengrin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Because the certificate would entitle them to be there if challenged. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

---

I have no doubt there are sex offenders out there who maybe have in the past thought about a crime but have been put off as they would as a very visible man be in a woman's space. They get a GRC now so much easier than before and it happens to give them that little bit of confidence they never had in the past to go on and commit that offence as if challenged they are now legally a woman and have the paperwork to prove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I was pulling the poster up for saying "there are no checks". Which is incorrect.

Whether these checks are appropriate and sufficient..... that was last week's discussion :greengrin.

---

What are the checks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Because the certificate would entitle them to be there if challenged. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

---

Who is going to walk up to them and challenge them for a certificate? That's never happened before and there's no reason to assume it would happen now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Who is going to walk up to them and challenge them for a certificate? That's never happened before and there's no reason to assume it would happen now.

---

I'm not talking about somebody challenging them for a certificate (will it be a requirement to carry one? I don't know) but should a bloke who has been granted one decide to loiter around a women-only space and gets told that he's in, say, the women's changing room, he'll be able to reply 'I am a woman'. Yes, that could apply to someone who has been granted one under the current legislation but there's no question there are a lot less hoops to jump through (ie virtually none) to gain that kind of legal access under the SG bill. It seems entirely understandable that women would feel deeply uncomfortable about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Women's prison and isolated in solitary apparently.

---

The analysis by David Cowan which has now been added to the story underlines what a messy business this is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64388669

That bloke surely cannot be allowed to serve his sentence among women prisoners if holding him in solitary will ultimately breach his human rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

The analysis by David Cowan which has now been added to the story underlines what a messy business this is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64388669

That bloke surely cannot be allowed to serve his sentence among women prisoners if holding him in solitary will ultimately breach his human rights.

---

I genuinely think the only solution is male, female and trans facilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I genuinely think the only solution is male, female and trans facilities.

---

But there are trans men and trans women, there isn't just trans?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Second former Supreme Court judge explains why the veto is correct (from the Sunday Times):

This is a fight with Westminster that Sturgeon won't win
by Jonathan Sumption

THE UK government’s veto of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill has provoked predictable outrage from Bute House. The first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has called it a “full frontal attack” on Scottish democracy. She threatens a challenge in the courts.
Three streets away in Edinburgh’s New Town, Lord Hope of Craighead, a distinguished Scottish lawyer and former deputy president of the UK Supreme Court, is scathing. Her litigation, he says, will be a hopeless waste of public money. What is going on?
The Edinburgh parliament is a subordinate legislature. It owes its existence and powers entirely to the Scotland Act 1998, an act of the UK parliament. The scheme of the Scotland Act is perfectly rational. It devolves to Scotland everything of exclusive concern to Scotland, while reserving to Westminster a long list of “reserved matters” that concern the whole of the United Kingdom.
Section 35 of the act is part of this scheme. It empowers the UK government to stop a Scottish bill from becoming law, but only if the bill deals with matters reserved to Westminster in a way that adversely affects how the law works.One of these reserved matters is equal opportunities.
What mainly concerns the UK government is that the new bill will create a special regime for recognising gender reassignment in Scotland. Trans people will be able to self-identify without satisfying the clinical tests that apply in the rest of the UK and the minimum age will be reduced from 18 to 16. This is achieved by modifying the operation in Scotland of two Westminster statutes, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, both of which apply throughout the UK.
The changes will not apply in the rest of the UK, but that is heart of the problem. If the bill becomes law, some UK citizens will have a different legal gender in different parts of the UK, depending on where they happen to be.
This poses serious legal and practical problems for employers and public authorities operating on a UK-wide basis. They will have to discriminate between trans people in Scotland and the rest of the UK on such matters as equal pay, gender discrimination, tax, benefits and pensions, all of which are subject to UK-wide statutory regimes.
These are powerful points. It is not clear what the Scottish ministers’ answer is. Unless they can think of one, their judicial review will fail. But all that we have heard from them so far is froth and rage.
The suggestion that the UK government’s veto is an attack on Scottish democracy is absurd. The matters reserved to Westminster by the Scotland Act concern the whole of the UK. Only Westminster can legitimately speak for the whole of the UK, and Scotland is fully represented there by 59 MPs. They don’t always get their way, but that is democracy for you.
The Scottish parliament represents less than a tenth of the people of the UK. It would be wholly undemocratic for the Scottish tail to be allowed to wag the UK dog on issues such as these.
Scotland has a remarkably generous devolution settlement. Almost everything which really matters to Scots is devolved. This ought to mean that there are few occasions for conflict with Westminster.
But for some years Scottish ministers have been promoting bills in Edinburgh designed to throw grit into the working of the Union in the few areas where there is scope for disagreement. The strategy is to nibble away at the matters reserved to Westminster in order to provoke constitutional rows, which they hope will boost support for independence.
Hence the constant yelling about assaults on Scottish democracy whenever the Scottish parliament comes up against the limits of its powers and the legitimate interests of the UK as a whole.
On this occasion, however, Sturgeon’s famous political skills may have deserted her. The signs are that her Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is alienating some of her natural supporters north of the border. When opportunities to pick a quarrel with Westminster are so few, it is more important than ever to choose the right ones.

Lord Sumption is a former Justice of the Supreme Court

---

An interesting read, that shows why Westminster had no other option, it had to use section 35 to block the Alice in Wonderland GRRB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I genuinely think the only solution is male, female and trans facilities.

---

Fair point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

But there are trans men and trans women, there isn't just trans?!

---

Fair point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

But there are trans men and trans women, there isn't just trans?!

---

Fair point.

Apologies for the multi posts. Dunno what happened there!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Apologies for the multi posts. Dunno what happened there!

---

Fair point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I genuinely think the only solution is male, female and trans facilities.

---

This case is just insane. A transwoman found guilty of raping two women is sent to a women's prison because he started transitioning AFTER being charged with the offences. Why wasn't he charged with contempt of court??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

An interesting read, that shows why Westminster had no other option, it had to use section 35 to block the Alice in Wonderland GRRB.

---

It provided a good explanation for the likes of me that hadn't heard clear examples of how the GRR impacts the Equality Act. Imo the last 3 para's come across as a dislike for the SG which then makes me question how objective the former Judge's view on the Bill is. There was no need to specifically mention the SG/FM, it comes across as being overtly politically biased which has no real basis given the legislation has cross party support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Will it be a requirement to carry one? I don't know.

---

No. It wasn't the case before, so it wouldn't be the case now either. There are no checks on people for GRCs when entering gender specific spaces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

but should a bloke who has been granted one decide to loiter around a women-only space and gets told that he's in, say, the women's changing room, he'll be able to reply 'I am a woman'.

---

Any man could have walked into a women's changing room already and simply claimed that. Why anybody would go to the hassle of getting a GRC in order to gain access to a female changing room in order to say something that they could just say anyway without a GRC is beyond ludicrous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

This case is just insane. A transwoman found guilty of raping two women is sent to a women's prison because he started transitioning AFTER being charged with the offences. Why wasn't he charged with contempt of court??

---

Still has nothing to do with the legislation being blocked by Westminster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

But there are trans men and trans women, there isn't just trans?!

---

Most new build council government and university buildings are making gender neutral toilets and changing areas a standard. Each toilet cubicle has toilet sink hand dryer, so no mixing.

I think their should be some as standard in all new build public buildings just like disabled facilities are. Would solve one issue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

No. It wasn't the case before, so it wouldn't be the case now either. There are no checks on people for GRCs when entering gender specific spaces.



Any man could have walked into a women's changing room already and simply claimed that. Why anybody would go to the hassle of getting a GRC in order to gain access to a female changing room in order to say something that they could just say anyway without a GRC is beyond ludicrous.

---

How does allowing a convicted sex offender get a GRC so much easier than the process today advance Trans Rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Most new build council government and university buildings are making gender neutral toilets and changing areas a standard. Each toilet cubicle has toilet sink hand dryer, so no mixing.

I think their should be some as standard in all new build public buildings just like disabled facilities are. Would solve one issue

---

That's one of the most sensible posts with an actual solution.

Gender neutral toilets in the Queen's Hall since it was renovated and there is no problem.

As for the women only space such as refuges, they can refuse entry to anyone now and that doesn't change.

Dramatic increase of hate crime against trans people in yesterday's figures produced by the SG. This despite an overall decrease in hate crimes during the same period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

Still has nothing to do with the legislation being blocked by Westminster.

---

Not saying it does. This thread goes wider than that though and it's a concerning new development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa Cruz

It provided a good explanation for the likes of me that hadn't heard clear examples of how the GRR impacts the Equality Act. Imo the last 3 para's come across as a dislike for the SG which then makes me question how objective the former Judge's view on the Bill is. There was no need to specifically mention the SG/FM, it comes across as being overtly politically biased which has no real basis given the legislation has cross party support.

---

I thought it wouldn't be long before a supporter of the Scottish government came along with SG good UK gov bad line. However one thing to bare in mind is that if Starmer was in power he would have blocked it too, he would have had no other option because it impacts on the Equality Act.

Also if Nicola Sturgeon wants to waste tax payers money by taking it to court, the judges will also block it, not because they are anti Scottish but because blocking bad legislation that impacts on the Equality Act is the grown up thing to do.

https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/statu...TX48CyjMQ&s=19

A member of the SNP threatened to rape and kill Joanna Cherry because of her views.

"A member of my own party was convicted of threatening to rape me because of my views... trans rights activists threatened to murder me."