Her point is she will be living in fear as she wouldn't be able to ask or know if she was trans. How would she know no one would be allowed to tell herQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Are you another one saying her fears aren't valid
Printable View
Her point is she will be living in fear as she wouldn't be able to ask or know if she was trans. How would she know no one would be allowed to tell herQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Are you another one saying her fears aren't valid
Women are saying it's a concern for them, who are we to tell these women they are wrong and their concerns are stupid and they just need to get on with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Read my post, I already said her fears are valid, all fears and phobias are valid but not always rational.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
You guys are arguing hypotheticals, using that logic we all need to believe in God or at least accept his possible existence because other people believe in him/her/it, sorry but until I see proof it's just hypothetical and therefore scare mongering.
This to me is pretty disgusting to be honest. Equating disabled people saying a ruling opens up an avenue to different biological sex care to a phobia or believing in GodQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
This isn't a hypothetical her fear is enough and her rights and others are enough. Both sides of the debate really show themselves up sometimes
They maybe concerned and it might be valid but is it rational? Have there been previous cases where patients have been refused same sex care? Do you really believe that a transsexual carer would want to or be forced to care for someone objected to them caring for them? That's just mental.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
That's a common held belief from the anti-trans side of the debate, that somehow believing that trans people should be accepted is disgusting. I can live with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Not sure if this is the case being discussed.
https://www.transgendertrend.com/sev...-under-threat/
If it is:-
It's not Scottish, so the GRA/GRRB isn't relevant.
It's been imposed by the local authority, apparently to comply with the Equality Act.
If it's not, the EA still affects any similar Scottish cases.
Way to twist they views. Disgusting is saying someone with a disabilities wishes are irrelevant and irrational.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Trans people should and must be accepted, but not at the detriment to women's rights. There needs to be some caveats and I'm sure they will come as they have in prisons this week
This is a bizarre line of argument. If Hibs said they were only going to play 16 year olds on Saturday. I would raise concerns about us getting thumped. Using your argument I would be fear mongering as I couldn't prove that decision had led to a defeat, because it hadn't happened yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
No one has said the phrase clear and present danger. But people, not just on here, have raised concerns about the potential impact of the legislation. But until it's enacted we can't know.
I sense you are angry about the issue, but I'm afraid no one can give you the certainty you crave.
Pretty much makes a mockery of the UK government's meddling in Scottish affairs.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm sure they will too, so why the outrage?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
It's not it was Henrietta Freeman. Her fear is Scottish care providers and charities will go the way rape crisis charities and some women's refuges have gone and say trans women are literally women. If they did then it would be same sex careQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
My argument is bizarre but you then use an analogy comparing the transgender bill to Hibs playing a team of 16 year old :faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
It's not. The woman in question is a quadriplegic who feels very vulnerable if she doesn't have female only care. I'd say it's a campaign rather than a legal challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Because there isn't at the minute. Katie dolatowski was placed in a female refuge and is now in a female prison. You might say it's irrational but some women will be scared of trans women being in refuges and prisons now. People with disabilities will be worried that trans female will be seen as females by some care providers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
The only caveat so far that has been brought in is because public outrage
Thanks for clarifying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
But the point stands that the EA seems to have primacy, which would also be the case in Scotland. So nothing to do with anything we may or may not (be allowed to) pass.
So how does the analogy not work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
If that were the case any judicial review raised by the SG would win. It's about the Bill's impact on the UKQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
You can see how she is doubtful when that also should go for rape crisis centres and women's refuges. They can be protected by law but as we've seen recently it's up to the provider. There's hundreds of care groups, one could choose to say trans women are women, especially when gra is opened upQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Because there is precedent for young unexperienced teams getting thumped, there is none for people being refused same sex care.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
But it would be same sex care. The same as it was a same sex women's refuge katie dolatowski went to, same sex prison or same sex rape crisis support. That's what a gra isQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
So you accept that it's possible to take a view on something that hasn't yet happened, based on other sources of evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Show me an example where same sex care was denied and I'll reconsider my opinion, anything else is whataboutery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
So the Scottish Government will easily win in court then? Let's see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Yes, but I don't believe women would be denied same sex care based on the Scottish transgender bill. There's zero evidence or reason to believe so unless you want to believe it. Now we're back to the religion analogy but that's apparently disgusting.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
The court that's a UK government organ you mean? My question is also an answer BTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
A court system that the tories have spent the best part of 12+ years chipping away at through increasingly more draconian legislation?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Would you believe women would be denied same sex refuge centres or rape support or prison. I don't think you know what a gra is, it would be same sex care if a trans female was giving it to a biological female.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
I've also no idea if trans females are in rape crisis centres or women's refuges right now. How would we know as they are seen as same sex. There is plenty of evidence to believe there is pretty much no female only spaces now. I'd never have believed a woman's refuge would have biological males in it before it came out this week
How is the Court of Session in Edinburgh a UK Government Organ? Are you getting mixed up with the Supreme Court, the one that ruled against the UK Government on Brexit not that long ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
What the Court of Session in Edinburgh? That's where it's going next.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee