The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

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.

---

I'm not an SNP or Tory voter. I was pointing out the former judge did not sound impartial to me as there really was no need for him to mention his views on the SG/FM, he should have just stuck to the subject issue. I was also pointing out the Bill has cross party support, maybe he should have aimed his critisism at the Scottish Parliament and not singled out the SG. I don't hold extreme views on anything. I like to look at both sides of any issue, then I make up my mind where I stand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibby70

Fair point

---

I agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

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.

---

And the definition of hate crimes is?

This thread is just rehashing the old arguments about sexual predators and changing rooms. Those arguments have been had and it’s been voted on in the Scottish Parliament. None of that really matters now to what happens next. All that matters now, is if the law affects England to the extant that justifies a s35 order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee

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.

---

Again, 'any man' who did that without a GRC would not have the law on his side should he be challenged over his presence there. You seem to be choosing to ignore the very clear reasons why women are entitled to feel uneasy about this aspect of the bill.

The 'Isla Bryson' case, while not relating directly to the bill, does indicate the lengths sexual predators will go to turn a situation to their advantage.

Incidentally IIRC there was an amendment proposed to the bill which would in future have prevented sex offenders doing just what 'Isla' has done but it was voted down by the SNP/Greens and (I think) Lib Dems. Unfathomable really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

This thread is just rehashing the old arguments about sexual predators and changing rooms. Those arguments have been had and it’s been voted on in the Scottish Parliament. None of that really matters now to what happens next. All that matters now, is if the law affects England to the extant that justifies a s35 order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I pretty much agree with this. I think the ramifications of the whole process will resonate for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I pretty much agree with this. I think the ramifications of the whole process will resonate for a long time.

---

Yet some say it's a niche matter, the general public don't care and it will soon be forgotten about. Maybe wishful thinking I suspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

And the definition of hate crimes is?

---

It's on the SG website mate. I'm on my phone so can't link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

It's on the SG website mate. I'm on my phone so can't link.

---

OK I'll have a look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

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.

---

I suppose if you pick out a group of people and equate them with sex-offenders day after day haters will end up hating.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

OK I'll have a look.

---

Back home. Here you go.

Recording of hate crime by police
What is the definition of a police recorded hate crime?
This report draws on information recorded by Police Scotland and adopts the categorisations and definitions used by them when they do this. Further information on how Police Scotland record hate crimes is provided below.

For the purposes of this report, a hate crime is any crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards a social group.

In Scotland, the law recognises hate crimes as crimes motivated by prejudice based on the characteristics listed below. Further information on the legislation used by the police to record hate crime is also available within Section One of the earlier 'Developing Information on Hate Crime Recorded by the Police in Scotland' report.

Disability,
Race,
Religion,
Sexual orientation,
Transgender identity.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/st...rime-scotland/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

I suppose if you pick out a group of people and equate them with sex-offenders day after day haters will end up hating.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

Literally nobody is doing that. It seems you want that to be true but it's not. You are copying Maggie Chapman, I will let you decide if that's someone you think you should be copying. Even the SNP members shouted her down when she did this.

How does allowing a convicted sex offender getting a GRC so easily with this change advance Trans Rights, which you are so obviously concerned about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Literally nobody is doing that. It seems you want that to be true but it's not.

---

Nobody is doing that? Do you monitor every social platform in existence?

If you mention fruit in your answer don't expect a reply.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Nobody is doing that? Do you monitor every social platform in existence?

If you mention fruit in your answer don't expect a reply.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

I see people concerned about sex offenders, I see very few people saying Trans people are all sex offenders which is what you were implying.

I can ask again, how does allowing a convicted sex offender get a GRC so much easier than before advance Trans Rights? How?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Nobody is doing that? Do you monitor every social platform in existence?

If you mention fruit in your answer don't expect a reply.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

:tee hee:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

I see people concerned about sex offenders, I see very few people saying Trans people are all sex offenders which is what you were implying.

---

The rhetorical habit of mentioning both groups in the same sentence every day, day after day leads to a conflation. There doesn't have to be intent from the writer, the repeated juxtaposition is enough to trigger some folk toward hatred.

Do you monitor every social platform?

What reason would you say there is to explain the increase in hate crimes?


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

The rhetorical habit of mentioning both groups in the same sentence every day, day after day leads to a conflation. There doesn't have to be intent from the writer, the repeated juxtaposition is enough to trigger some folk toward hatred.

Do you monitor every social platform?

What reason would you say there is to explain the increase in hate crimes?


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

I'd like to think that more of these crimes are being reported, which would increase the numbers in those stats.

However, part of me worries that the number of actual attacks is increasing. Just like post 9-11 with Muslims and in the 80's against gay men after decriminalisation, there could be a similar pattern; shine a light on a minority, highlight something "bad" about them and there's your excuse for violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

The rhetorical habit of mentioning both groups in the same sentence every day, day after day leads to a conflation. There doesn't have to be intent from the writer, the repeated juxtaposition is enough to trigger some folk toward hatred.

Do you monitor every social platform?

What reason would you say there is to explain the increase in hate crimes?


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

But why does changing the process to now allow a convicted sex offender get a GRC much easier than before advance Trans Rights? How does this change help trans people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

But why does changing the process to now allow a convicted sex offender get a GRC much easier than before advance Trans Rights? How does this change help trans people?

---

Your doing the thing that I am highlighting again and again without addressing a possible outcome of what you are doing.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'd like to think that more of these crimes are being reported, which would increase the numbers in those stats.

However, part of me worries that the number of actual attacks is increasing. Just like post 9-11 with Muslims and in the 80's against gay men after decriminalisation, there could be a similar pattern; shine a light on a minority, highlight something "bad" about them and there's your excuse for violence.

---

Of course it's going to happen. Not everyone understands nuance. If a narrative is constructed whereby trans people are persistently juxtaposed to sex offenders, as happened with gay rights legislation, thickos will act as they see fit and lash out.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

The rhetorical habit of mentioning both groups in the same sentence every day, day after day leads to a conflation. There doesn't have to be intent from the writer, the repeated juxtaposition is enough to trigger some folk toward hatred.

Do you monitor every social platform?

What reason would you say there is to explain the increase in hate crimes?


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

Exactly. We saw the same thing with the shameful and largely underreported rise in hate crime against the Asian predominantly Chinese ethnic population across the west during Covid. Make repeated connections between an ethnic group and any threatening phenomena, (death dealing pandemic and sexual violence playing the same role) connecting with ‘The Chinese’ and ‘blokes wearing a dress’ respectively, and you have a potent toxic brew where you are creating a target for othering and worse.

Sigh, why can’t we just get along with each other. John Lennon required here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Your doing the thing that I am highlighting again and again without addressing a possible outcome of what you are doing.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

Fair enough, don't answer the question then, I only asked it about 3 times.

A consequence of the change in law makes it easier for everyone to apply for a GRC, lots of people have valid concerns due to this change but rather than address those concerns it's much easier to just shout them down like Maggie Chapman and say people are saying Trans people are sex offenders when nobody is doing that.

Are Joanna Cherry and JK Rowling and lots of other feminists all wrong? Are they saying Trans people are sex offenders or do they as woman have valid concerns that should be addressed?

We are going round in circles though so I am off for an apple, or maybe a pear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

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."

---

She's spot on about 'Isla' gaming the system to get a placed in a women's prison. I do wonder how long Cherry will feel she can in good conscience remain an SNP member.

Seems an appropriate day to turn to the words of Burns:

'Amid this mighty fuss just let me mention,
The Rights of Woman merit some attention'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

And the definition of hate crimes is?

---

The Scottish Government defines Hate Crime as crime committed against a person or property that is motivated by ‘malice or ill-will towards an identifiable social group’.

You can be a victim of a hate crime if you believe that someone has targeted you because of their prejudice against certain characteristics.

In Scotland, the law currently recognises hate crimes as crimes motivated by prejudice based on:

race
religion
sexual orientation
transgender identity
disability
You do not need to be a member of a minority community to be a victim of hate crime. The law is quite clear that the identity of the victim is irrelevant as to whether something is a hate crime or not. The motivation of the perpetrator is the key factor in defining a hate crime.

Hate Crimes can take a number of forms, including, but not limited to:

Threatening behaviour
Verbal abuse or insults including name-calling
Assault
Damage to property
Encouraging others to commit hate crimes
Harassment
Online abuse on sites like Facebook or Twitter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Fair enough, don't answer the question then, I only asked it about 3 times.

A consequence of the change in law makes it easier for everyone to apply for a GRC, lots of people have valid concerns due to this change but rather than address those concerns it's much easier to just shout them down like Maggie Chapman and say people are saying Trans people are sex offenders when nobody is doing that.

Are Joanna Cherry and JK Rowling and lots of other feminists all wrong? Are they saying Trans people are sex offenders or do they as woman have valid concerns that should be addressed?

We are going round in circles though so I am off for an apple, or maybe a pear.

---

You of course are repeatedly refusing to answer questions too. Enjoy your pair of apples.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

You of course are repeatedly refusing to answer questions too. Enjoy your pair of apples.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

What question did I refuse to answer? Fire away.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...c1bUB8Khw&s=19

"Men defining what a woman is, what women should and shouldn’t fear, what women should and shouldn’t say, what rights women should be fine with giving up and, of course, what constitutes ‘real’ misogyny: get a bloody mirror. That’s real misogyny, looking right back at you."

Some of the men on here should pay attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...c1bUB8Khw&s=19

"Men defining what a woman is, what women should and shouldn’t fear, what women should and shouldn’t say, what rights women should be fine with giving up and, of course, what constitutes ‘real’ misogyny: get a bloody mirror. That’s real misogyny, looking right back at you."

Some of the men on here should pay attention.

---

She's always spot on about this issue. As she is further down the page re Rosie Duffield's breezily mysogynistic treatment by her own party:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...6KKYbID8AZ5Hxg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Fair enough, don't answer the question then, I only asked it about 3 times.

A consequence of the change in law makes it easier for everyone to apply for a GRC, lots of people have valid concerns due to this change but rather than address those concerns it's much easier to just shout them down like Maggie Chapman and say people are saying Trans people are sex offenders when nobody is doing that.

Are Joanna Cherry and JK Rowling and lots of other feminists all wrong? Are they saying Trans people are sex offenders or do they as woman have valid concerns that should be addressed?

We are going round in circles though so I am off for an apple, or maybe a pear.

---

The difficulty certain posters have with answering that question is that either a) they refuse to concede that any SG bill can be open to criticism and therefore won't engage in debate about its contents (the move on, nothing to see here approach) or b) the fact that Westminster has taken a stance on the matter is deemed beyond the pale and the bill must therefore be backed unconditionally. In some cases it's both.

I think the bill is a mess and would think so no matter which political party was behind it. The supposed cross-party backing is something of a smokescreen for its defenders when the majority of MSPs were whipped to support it. I know that a number of Labour MSPs were privately conflicted, though unfortunately didn't have the courage of conviction shown by a number of SNP MSPs to simply vote with their conscience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...c1bUB8Khw&s=19

"Men defining what a woman is, what women should and shouldn’t fear, what women should and shouldn’t say, what rights women should be fine with giving up and, of course, what constitutes ‘real’ misogyny: get a bloody mirror. That’s real misogyny, looking right back at you."

Some of the men on here should pay attention.

---

Spot on, I would like to here anyone try to defend this a man who rapes to woman as a man, declaring he is now a woman after being charged and being transferred to a woman only prison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gylb2ABWhuA