The Trans Rights Debate

Couldn't see another thread on this (though I'm sure there was one) so thought it best to start one in its own right. Admins please move if the other thread does exist.

I see that Netflix via Dave Chappelle is now a focal point for the angry voices on either side of this one, hard on the heels of a series of domestic criticisms and defences of Stonewall. It feels to me like this is growing as a political issue as it reaches greater public awareness. It needs resolved fast before the Trumps and Johnsons of this world are able to weaponise it for culture war but I just don't see any easy way of doing so.

I've not see the Dave Chapelle show in question so I'll happily admit to speaking from a position of ignorance, he may well have crossed a line. However I remember hearing Val McDermid speaking a couple of years back about a certain Irn Bru advert (I'm sure some will remember it) that has obviously not aged well. She suggested that sometimes you just have to accept that something is a joke, laugh it off and compartmentalise it separately from genuine discrimination. Given she is someone who has campaigned for and written extensively about LGBTQ+ rights I think she is probably worth listening to.

More generally I think the 'trans debate' is very noisy with 2 sides shouting slogans and 'their' science at each other but it actually impacts a tiny number of people. Basic rights for people who have transitioned largely don't directly impact on the day to day lives of most of us. The idea that people are going to use self ID as a means of gaining access to women's changing rooms seems a comparable level of scaremongering to what homosexuals came up against in the 70s and 80s. Yes, there may be the odd rogue case but it's hardly going to become the norm. On something of a flip side I would suggest various organisations need to move past the 'bodies with a cervix' stuff though and just call women what they are. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that trans women have a heightened awareness of their own bodies given it has been an issue for them their whole lives. Are they really going to pitch up for a smear test if leaflets and adverts ask women to come forward?

It really doesn't seem all that difficult to allow people who have undergone reassignment surgery or are in the process of doing so to live their lives as a man or a woman whilst still respecting the rights and safety of others. In fact it seems a lot of those rights overlap. A bit common sense and a rational discussion would go a long way but I think we are some way from that point as things stand. There is near hysteria on both sides of the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I've not see the Dave Chapelle show in question so I'll happily admit to speaking from a position of ignorance, he may well have crossed a line. However I remember hearing Val McDermid speaking a couple of years back about a certain Irn Bru advert (I'm sure some will remember it) that has obviously not aged well. She suggested that sometimes you just have to accept that something is a joke, laugh it off and compartmentalise it separately from genuine discrimination. Given she is someone who has campaigned for and written extensively about LGBTQ+ rights I think she is probably worth listening to.

More generally I think the 'trans debate' is very noisy with 2 sides shouting slogans and 'their' science at each other but it actually impacts a tiny number of people. Basic rights for people who have transitioned largely don't directly impact on the day to day lives of most of us. The idea that people are going to use self ID as a means of gaining access to women's changing rooms seems a comparable level of scaremongering to what homosexuals came up against in the 70s and 80s. Yes, there may be the odd rogue case but it's hardly going to become the norm. On something of a flip side I would suggest various organisations need to move past the 'bodies with a cervix' stuff though and just call women what they are. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that trans women have a heightened awareness of their own bodies given it has been an issue for them their whole lives. Are they really going to pitch up for a smear test if leaflets and adverts ask women to come forward?

It really doesn't seem all that difficult to allow people who have undergone reassignment surgery or are in the process of doing so to live their lives as a man or a woman whilst still respecting the rights and safety of others. In fact it seems a lot of those rights overlap. A bit common sense and a rational discussion would go a long way but I think we are some way from that point as things stand. There is near hysteria on both sides of the debate.

---

👍

What is wrong with calling it what it really is, human rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I've not see the Dave Chapelle show in question so I'll happily admit to speaking from a position of ignorance, he may well have crossed a line. However I remember hearing Val McDermid speaking a couple of years back about a certain Irn Bru advert (I'm sure some will remember it) that has obviously not aged well. She suggested that sometimes you just have to accept that something is a joke, laugh it off and compartmentalise it separately from genuine discrimination. Given she is someone who has campaigned for and written extensively about LGBTQ+ rights I think she is probably worth listening to.

More generally I think the 'trans debate' is very noisy with 2 sides shouting slogans and 'their' science at each other but it actually impacts a tiny number of people. Basic rights for people who have transitioned largely don't directly impact on the day to day lives of most of us. The idea that people are going to use self ID as a means of gaining access to women's changing rooms seems a comparable level of scaremongering to what homosexuals came up against in the 70s and 80s. Yes, there may be the odd rogue case but it's hardly going to become the norm. On something of a flip side I would suggest various organisations need to move past the 'bodies with a cervix' stuff though and just call women what they are. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that trans women have a heightened awareness of their own bodies given it has been an issue for them their whole lives. Are they really going to pitch up for a smear test if leaflets and adverts ask women to come forward?

It really doesn't seem all that difficult to allow people who have undergone reassignment surgery or are in the process of doing so to live their lives as a man or a woman whilst still respecting the rights and safety of others. In fact it seems a lot of those rights overlap. A bit common sense and a rational discussion would go a long way but I think we are some way from that point as things stand. There is near hysteria on both sides of the debate.

---

Something as seemingly uncontentious as this goes to the heart of the current 'debate' which isn't actually a debate at all, it's a jargon-littered war with both sides locked on transmit and no receive. That isn't doing either Trans or women's rights any favours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I've not see the Dave Chapelle show in question so I'll happily admit to speaking from a position of ignorance, he may well have crossed a line. However I remember hearing Val McDermid speaking a couple of years back about a certain Irn Bru advert (I'm sure some will remember it) that has obviously not aged well. She suggested that sometimes you just have to accept that something is a joke, laugh it off and compartmentalise it separately from genuine discrimination. Given she is someone who has campaigned for and written extensively about LGBTQ+ rights I think she is probably worth listening to.

More generally I think the 'trans debate' is very noisy with 2 sides shouting slogans and 'their' science at each other but it actually impacts a tiny number of people. Basic rights for people who have transitioned largely don't directly impact on the day to day lives of most of us. The idea that people are going to use self ID as a means of gaining access to women's changing rooms seems a comparable level of scaremongering to what homosexuals came up against in the 70s and 80s. Yes, there may be the odd rogue case but it's hardly going to become the norm. On something of a flip side I would suggest various organisations need to move past the 'bodies with a cervix' stuff though and just call women what they are. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that trans women have a heightened awareness of their own bodies given it has been an issue for them their whole lives. Are they really going to pitch up for a smear test if leaflets and adverts ask women to come forward?

It really doesn't seem all that difficult to allow people who have undergone reassignment surgery or are in the process of doing so to live their lives as a man or a woman whilst still respecting the rights and safety of others. In fact it seems a lot of those rights overlap. A bit common sense and a rational discussion would go a long way but I think we are some way from that point as things stand. There is near hysteria on both sides of the debate.

---

Way too sensible a post, there is zero screeching/growling in it which adds nothing to the direction "social media" wants it to go. [emoji1]

I've attended night clubs all my life (still do occasionally) then found myself working with and alongside many of the artists involved in US style House Music. House/Disco came about because gay/trans/hispanic/Black people weren't accepted in "normal" estaishments, so the built their own culture - browse for the history of Dave Mancuso's Loft parties for that history.

Those clubs are theirs. I'm accepted, a white heterosexual, as a "step-child" of House given I'm none of the above, but still accepted. The gay/trans people I've met and befriended have an attitude that couldn't be further away from that displayed within the debates that I've seen, on social media especially. They see us all as human beings and don't enjoy being put in a box.

I can only think that the "stirring up" of anger and entrenched views stem mainly from bad actors who see yet another avenue towards a bone of contention within the culture wars.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Who knew there was so much money involved and to be made from this.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/20...nder-ideology/

Given there is so much dough involved I'm more convinced than ever that the anonymous cowards that harrass people on social media and cost perfectly reasonable people their jobs are paid bots.

Dave Chapelle is bang on. If a "rights" movement involves rich, white, male capitalists then everyone else has to move down the queue.

The wife has been saying the same for ages, the "trans movement" and those "identifying" as "a woman" want all the hard won stuff that feminists have gained over the years but they want it and grab it with the sensibilities of the old school patriarchy.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Because of this stupid Trans-Rights debate, everything you say is potentially offensive. They've even had to create new, PC versions of old jokes and phrases.


e.g. "...Aye, and if my Aunty decided to self identify as a man, she'd be my Uncle".


I mean, that's not even funny!

The sharing changing rooms in shops issue gets made a lot.

Not sure why women are being required to use communal changing rooms. I’ve never had to use a communal changing room in a shop in my puff. They’re always individual cubicles. Women shouldn’t have to put up with that if its the case.

Strikes me women don’t get very considerate treatment. Like the total under provision of women’s toilets in places like theatres.

We heard of a girl at an independent school who insists on being referred to as "they" - two people as it were. She's being indulged in this too! Her friends are also considering regendering etc apparently.
That's one wacky school! Not enough cold baths and hockey sticks in my view.

I've watched a few you tubes of Dave Chappelle, he's a really funny guy, it's comedy, not to be taken serious, I find it quite ironic that that you have middle class white people claiming to be progressive and trying to get a black comedian cancelled, sums up the confused times were living in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

I've watched a few you tubes of Dave Chappelle, he's a really funny guy, it's comedy, not to be taken serious, I find it quite ironic that that you have middle class white people claiming to be progressive and trying to get a black comedian cancelled, sums up the confused times were living in.

---

He does switch to serious though. He's capable of turning his gags around to make a point.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

He does switch to serious though. He's capable of turning his gags around to make a point.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

---

He's a comedian, he doesn't make serious points he makes jokes, he covers a lot of ground but it seems like it's only people who think that a biological man can become a woman by simply declaring he's a woman that think he's making a serious point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

He's a comedian, he doesn't make serious points he makes jokes, he covers a lot of ground but it seems like it's only people who think that a biological man can become a woman by simply declaring he's a woman that think he's making a serious point.

---

Are we talking about Eddie Izzard here, although I wouldn't call him/her/it a comedian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Are we talking about Eddie Izzard here, although I wouldn't call him/her/it a comedian.

---

Hopefully not I find Eddie Izzard a bit irritating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

He's a comedian, he doesn't make serious points he makes jokes, he covers a lot of ground but it seems like it's only people who think that a biological man can become a woman by simply declaring he's a woman that think he's making a serious point.

---

I don't think you are listening all that closely, which is fair enough as some things have layers to be looked at or not.

A quick Google search showed this among many articles covering his change in style.

https://www.vulture.com/2018/01/dave...-be-taken.html

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

The changing room argument is nonsense in my view but the elite sport one needs consideration and has been an issue for a long time.

Live and let live I say and whether an individual identifies as one gender or not means nowhere near as much to me as if they are honest, generous, decent and a huge number of other factors that make them a good or bad person. The only person I regularly speak to who identifies differently to the norm just wants a bit of respect. Their action towards others will be the deciding factor in how gain that respect with the majority of the population

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heretoday

We heard of a girl at an independent school who insists on being referred to as "they" - two people as it were. She's being indulged in this too! Her friends are also considering regendering etc apparently.
That's one wacky school! Not enough cold baths and hockey sticks in my view.

---

I'm not so sure what the fuss is about. Royals have been calling themselves "we" for centuries and no one seems bothered. Maybe we should stop indulging Lizzy? Cold bath for her perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neil7908

I'm not so sure what the fuss is about. Royals have been calling themselves "we" for centuries and no one seems bothered. Maybe we should stop indulging Lizzy? Cold bath for her perhaps?

---

They are not amused

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

He's a comedian, he doesn't make serious points he makes jokes, he covers a lot of ground but it seems like it's only people who think that a biological man can become a woman by simply declaring he's a woman that think he's making a serious point.

---

Dave Chappelle does a lot of social commentary. His 8:46 show is incredibly compelling, and there's hardly a joke in it.

Given the current Hannah Gadsby blowback, I find it ironic that not only is Dave Chappelle better at being funny than her, but also better at not being funny.

Anyone who thinks Dave Chappelle is just a comedian hasn't paid close enough attention. He's sharp as a tack politically and most of his content is rooted in politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Are we talking about Eddie Izzard here, although I wouldn't call him/her/it a comedian.

---

What hope is there for decency or an informed debate when people refer to another human being as 'it'? :rolleyes:

Not OK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heretoday

We heard of a girl at an independent school who insists on being referred to as "they" - two people as it were. She's being indulged in this too! Her friends are also considering regendering etc apparently.
That's one wacky school! Not enough cold baths and hockey sticks in my view.

---

Wait until you get on Ze & Zir

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sylar

What hope is there for decency or an informed debate when people refer to another human being as 'it'? :rolleyes:

Not OK.

---

Agreed, I thought about reporting it but I'm not a snitch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sylar

What hope is there for decency or an informed debate when people refer to another human being as 'it'? :rolleyes:

Not OK.

---

Would you mind explaining that to my wife. I don't find it particularly flattering when we're in the cafe and she says to the person serving "it wants another cup of coffee".

https://news.sky.com/story/transgend...snt-sf-twitter

Transgender women should not be forced to reduce their testosterone levels to compete in sports, new International Olympic Committee (IOC) guidelines have said.

The IOC has labelled athlete sex testing as "invasive" and "disrespectful" in a new report that looks to be promote inclusion for transgender competitors

The guidelines will replace ones from 2015 and reverses the IOC's previous stance on transgender athletes.

Ridiculous it could get to a point when it's unusual for someone born a woman to win a boxing gold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

https://news.sky.com/story/transgend...snt-sf-twitter

Transgender women should not be forced to reduce their testosterone levels to compete in sports, new International Olympic Committee (IOC) guidelines have said.

The IOC has labelled athlete sex testing as "invasive" and "disrespectful" in a new report that looks to be promote inclusion for transgender competitors

The guidelines will replace ones from 2015 and reverses the IOC's previous stance on transgender athletes.

Ridiculous it could get to a point when it's unusual for someone born a woman to win a boxing gold

---

Have a spectrum of medals given there are a spectrum of people out there. It's done with the Paralympics.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Have a spectrum of medals given there are a spectrum of people out there. It's done with the Paralympics.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

---

We shouldn't be moving the goalposts of a secular competition based on belief - and identity is just that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 500miles

We shouldn't be moving the goalposts of a secular competition based on belief - and identity is just that.

---

Sometimes. Sometimes it's just fact.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Sometimes. Sometimes it's just fact.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

---

Sex is absolutely a fact. Gender is a belief that people have built up around those facts.

One is measurable and definable, the other is not. In matters like this, we must a stand by what is proven and measurable. This is "prayer in school" stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 500miles

Sex is absolutely a fact.

---

I get confused easily. Is intersex also a fact? :dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

I get confused easily. Is intersex also a fact? :dunno:

---

Intersex is indeed a fact but

1.intersex conditions- like Turner's syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome, still occur within a sex binary. You don't get females with Klinefelter's or Males with Turner's syndrome.

2. Intersex people aren't trans people. They exist with definable and measurable conditions.

I think trans people should be allowed to compete in sport, but that the men's competition should be defined as "open", thus preventing unfair sex based advantages, because it is male sexual development which grants that advantage.

I don’t envy the sporting bodies that have to make a ruling on this, whatever they come up with will cause outrage. Imo if one athlete has an unfair advantage over another then it shouldn’t be allowed. Sport should give every competitor a chance to make it to the top, if one competitor is at a level that others can’t physically reach then it’s not fair. I’m sure someone will now come and tell me why I’m wrong, but that’s why I think it’s an impossible decision.

Here's a link to an article criticising the current director of Edinburgh Rape Crisis. The person concerned is a man who self -identifies as a woman. It's an unbelievable situation and is probably a microcosm of the whole debate. Who's rights prevail? My own view is simplistic. If you have a boaby then when it comes down to fundamentals, you're a man. In terms of safe spaces for women who have been subject to sexual assault, I'm happy to accept a female only environment is vital. Self identification is not enough.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/...crisis-centre/

"Mridul Wadhwa, a man who passes as a woman but who does not have a Gender Recognition Certificate and is understood not to have undergone reassignment surgery, is of the opinion that a rape survivor who seeks help from Rape Crisis Edinburgh and asks to be examined by a woman doctor rather than a trans doctor is a bigot and needs re-educating to help her get over the trauma of rape.

Wadhwa, a former SNP parliamentary candidate, left the party after MSPs overwhelmingly backed an amendment to allow survivors of rape and sexual violence to ask for biological women rather than trans women to examine and counsel them. Wadhwa is of the opinion that women who want genuine safe spaces for traumatised women have ‘unacceptable beliefs’, and tells them ‘You have to rethink your relationship with prejudice’.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

Here's a link to an article criticising the current director of Edinburgh Rape Crisis. The person concerned is a man who self -identifies as a woman. It's an unbelievable situation and is probably a microcosm of the whole debate. Who's rights prevail? My own view is simplistic. If you have a boaby then when it comes down to fundamentals, you're a man. In terms of safe spaces for women who have been subject to sexual assault, I'm happy to accept a female only environment is vital. Self identification is not enough.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/...crisis-centre/

"Mridul Wadhwa, a man who passes as a woman but who does not have a Gender Recognition Certificate and is understood not to have undergone reassignment surgery, is of the opinion that a rape survivor who seeks help from Rape Crisis Edinburgh and asks to be examined by a woman doctor rather than a trans doctor is a bigot and needs re-educating to help her get over the trauma of rape.

Wadhwa, a former SNP parliamentary candidate, left the party after MSPs overwhelmingly backed an amendment to allow survivors of rape and sexual violence to ask for biological women rather than trans women to examine and counsel them. Wadhwa is of the opinion that women who want genuine safe spaces for traumatised women have ‘unacceptable beliefs’, and tells them ‘You have to rethink your relationship with prejudice’.

---

The trans rights mantra that 'a transwoman is a woman' does not stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. It means that anyone who says they are a woman is a woman, full stop. Biology is irrelevant because gender trumps sex and it is therefore not necessary for a transwoman to have reassignment surgery. Basically, if some women have a p***s so be it.

Taken to extremes, there have even been accusations that those men who would not consider dating a 'woman' with a p***s are transphobic - ditto for women who wouldn't include 'men' with a vagina among their dating pool:

http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/06...-trans-person/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

The trans rights mantra that 'a transwoman is a woman' does not stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. It means that anyone who says they are a woman is a woman, full stop. Biology is irrelevant because gender trumps sex and it is therefore not necessary for a transwoman to have reassignment surgery. Basically, if some women have a p***s so be it.

Taken to extremes, there have even been accusations that those men who would not consider dating a 'woman' with a p***s are transphobic - ditto for women who wouldn't include 'men' with a vagina among their dating pool:

http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/06...-trans-person/

---

I am just blown away that anyone with a ***** could be appointed to a leadership role in a service like Edinburgh Rape Crisis, never mind the fact that they then use their influence to try and undermine the concept of single gender safe spaces for female victims of sexual abuse. It's an abhorrent situation

This is probably too simplistic but, if your aunt has testes then he is your uncle. Similarly if your uncle has ovaries then she is your aunt.

What is visible on the outside is of no relevance, you can't judge a book by its cover.


However, I genuinely think that some people do believe that they are in the wrong body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

I am just blown away that anyone with a ***** could be appointed to a leadership role in a service like Edinburgh Rape Crisis, never mind the fact that they then use their influence to try and undermine the concept of single gender safe spaces for female victims of sexual abuse. It's an abhorrent situation

---

Assuming your word in asterisk is the male organ, why should having a male organ preclude someone from having a leadership role in a service like Edinburgh Rape Crisis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Modfather

Assuming your word in asterisk is the male organ, why should having a male organ preclude someone from having a leadership role in a service like Edinburgh Rape Crisis?

---

It’s widely accepted that there are services exempt from equalities act and are the preserve of a single gender. Another well known one is Woman’s Aid.

Edinburgh Rape Crisis offer support to all people below the age of 18 and exclusively to women if you are over 18.

You should read the quotes in my earlier post or the article link I posted. He has an agenda which conflicts with the rights of female survivors of sexual assault. Personally, I think calling women bigoted and in need of education if they want a female doctor after being attacked or saying that single gendered safe space for victims of sexual assault reflects “ unacceptable beliefs”....I think that is enough to preclude someone from the leadership role he occupies.

He can gender self identify all he wants, but when that self identification creates conflict in a very public way, around such an emotive subject, then you have to question why and what is right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

I am just blown away that anyone with a ***** could be appointed to a leadership role in a service like Edinburgh Rape Crisis, never mind the fact that they then use their influence to try and undermine the concept of single gender safe spaces for female victims of sexual abuse. It's an abhorrent situation

---

Presumably the majority of the ERC board, all of them cis-female at first sight (although no assumptions made here), were comfortable with their appointment.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1461101683430367238

?!

I'm not in any way a person with extreme views so I'm more than a little disturbed to read comments from people (not necessarily on here) that suggest that those that don't exactly share their point of view on things like Transgender issues are Nazis/Fascists/Bigots, etc.

As far as I'm aware, nobody has suggested putting anybody in a Concentration Camp.

I think the person that wrote that needs to consider just how offensive that comment was.

The well known expression “If yer maw had ba’s she’d be yer da” is somewhat meaningless in this context.

https://www.ladbible.com/news/transg...ource=facebook

There could be a point that every record in women's events is held by someone born a male

It's such an alien issue to me, that Trans rights isn't something I can discuss with any confidence. I've never met a Trans person and I have no understanding of the psychological issue a person experiences when feeling they were born the wrong gender. It's just so outside my realm of experience. Ultimately trans people must be afforded the same rights and respect as everyone else. As said above, some basic decency and common sense can go a long way. The fact many of us struggle to understand the issue must never be an excuse for discrimination or hysterical fearmongering. Gender reassignment is a new phenomenon and over time we all learn more.

Hadn't spotted this until now. Police Scotland suggesting if a rapist with male genitalia identifies as a woman the crime will be recorded ad having been committed by a woman:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/j...gers-5m9jrwv0p

I thought that by law rape could only be committed by a man?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Hadn't spotted this until now. Police Scotland suggesting if a rapist with male genitalia identifies as a woman the crime will be recorded ad having been committed by a woman:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/j...gers-5m9jrwv0p

I thought that by law rape could only be committed by a man?!

---

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/section/1

Rape is a statutory offence which refers to a person committing the crime, not a man/ male. Deliberately not posting the details of the offence on the thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radium

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/section/1

Rape is a statutory offence which refers to a person committing the crime, not a man/ male. Deliberately not posting the details of the offence on the thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

But can only be committed by someone with a *****?

Starts with P ends with S

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

But can only be committed by someone with a *****?

Starts with P ends with S

---

Are they just confirming that if a woman with a ***** is the perpetrator then they'll be identified as a woman whilst being prosecuted for rape.

i.e. it doesn't matter what they identify as, they can still be charged.

Presumably knocking back any suggestions that being able to self-identity allows you to get away with certain crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

But can only be committed by someone with a *****?

Starts with P ends with S

---

That’s what the legislation says.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was reading some lierature my partner was given after she had a small procedure post giving birth. After about the 5th page the references to 'persons with a cervix' and 'individuals with a womb' was almost comical.

We all know not all women have ovaries or wombs for various reasons but just refer to women FFS. That kind of thing just feeds the hysteria from people who are transphobic/extreme feminist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I was reading some lierature my partner was given after she had a small procedure post giving birth. After about the 5th page the references to 'persons with a cervix' and 'individuals with a womb' was almost comical.

We all know not all women have ovaries or wombs for various reasons but just refer to women FFS. That kind of thing just feeds the hysteria from people who are transphobic/extreme feminist.

---

I think it was in the news recently the word "mother" has been removed from all Scottish Government produced maternity literature. Probably the same literature you have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

I think it was in the news recently the word "mother" has been removed from all Scottish Government produced maternity literature. Probably the same literature you have.

---

I did find myself thinking earlier about the money spent - no doubt on consultancies and research etc - on this sort of amendment when the FM was bemoaning the lack of cash to help Scottish businesses during the pandemic.

Totally at a tangent, but news reader on BBC radio Scotland Drive time referred to the former MSP Ruth Davidson as Lord Davidson. 🤔😁

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

I think it was in the news recently the word "mother" has been removed from all Scottish Government produced maternity literature. Probably the same literature you have.

---

Do you need to use the word mother when talking about maternity? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Grieves

Do you need to use the word mother when talking about maternity? :confused:

---

Well the word maternity means motherhood...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Well the word maternity means motherhood...?

---

I know, so was the word maternity used in this literature you read about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I was reading some lierature my partner was given after she had a small procedure post giving birth. After about the 5th page the references to 'persons with a cervix' and 'individuals with a womb' was almost comical.

We all know not all women have ovaries or wombs for various reasons but just refer to women FFS. That kind of thing just feeds the hysteria from people who are transphobic/extreme feminist.

---

:agree:


That's just nonsense and it does no one any favours.

https://www.rebelnews.com/the_guardi...omes_out_ahead

These things have a tendency to backfire...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

https://www.rebelnews.com/the_guardi...omes_out_ahead

These things have a tendency to backfire...

---

Doubt it because it’s an issue that the vast majority of people don’t care a jot about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

https://www.rebelnews.com/the_guardi...omes_out_ahead

These things have a tendency to backfire...

---

Do you take that website seriously? What a *****hole

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

https://www.rebelnews.com/the_guardi...omes_out_ahead

These things have a tendency to backfire...

---

Which things? The hoax?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19820170.jk-rowling-guardian-claims-paper-pulled-poll-revealed-hoax/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

https://www.rebelnews.com/the_guardi...omes_out_ahead

These things have a tendency to backfire...

---

RebelNews :faf:

Absolute textbook example of fake news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Which things? The hoax?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19820170.jk-rowling-guardian-claims-paper-pulled-poll-revealed-hoax/

---

Sounds like a fudge from the Guardian 😉

To their credit I see they have included her among those nominated, which will likely bring them plenty flak from the more extreme trans activists.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/30/guardian-readers-nominate-their-person-of-the-year

The daft thing about the abuse she takes (and the pathetic haste with which those ropey young acting 'talents' who owe their careers to Rowling have turned on her lest they too be 'cancelled' for saying and believing things shared by the vast majority of the population) is that those who actually take the time to read what she had to say will see that her views are incredibly measured and sympathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Sounds like a fudge from the Guardian 😉

To their credit I see they have included her among those nominated, which will likely bring them plenty flak from the more extreme trans activists.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/30/guardian-readers-nominate-their-person-of-the-year

The daft thing about the abuse she takes (and the pathetic haste with which those ropey young acting 'talents' who owe their careers to Rowling have turned on her lest they too be 'cancelled' for saying and believing things shared by the vast majority of the population) is that those who actually take the time to read what she had to say will see that her views are incredibly measured and sympathetic.

---

Have some of the Harry Potter cast spoke out against JK Rowling?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Sounds like a fudge from the Guardian [emoji6]

To their credit I see they have included her among those nominated, which will likely bring them plenty flak from the more extreme trans activists.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...on-of-the-year

The daft thing about the abuse she takes (and the pathetic haste with which those ropey young acting 'talents' who owe their careers to Rowling have turned on her lest they too be 'cancelled' for saying and believing things shared by the vast majority of the population) is that those who actually take the time to read what she had to say will see that her views are incredibly measured and sympathetic.

---

Your desperate to make this an issue.[emoji23]
If JK Rowling has been cancelled then it’s the worst attempt in history given her book sales even now, 25 years in. [emoji23] As for attacking actors because they hold a different view? Are they not allowed?

This thread has been running three months and it’s at about 70 posts. Given how much we love to debate issues people care about, you’d think it would be much bigger?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Have some of the Harry Potter cast spoke out against JK Rowling?!

---

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53023580

Some of the others, most notably Robbie Coltrane and Ralph Fiennes, however, have strongly supported her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53023580

Some of the others, most notably Robbie Coltrane and Ralph Fiennes, however, have strongly supported her.

---

Thanks. Not sure Ron Weasley saying he stands with the trans community is worth a rant about actors owing their careers to Rowling though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Sounds like a fudge from the Guardian ��

To their credit I see they have included her among those nominated, which will likely bring them plenty flak from the more extreme trans activists.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...on-of-the-year

The daft thing about the abuse she takes (and the pathetic haste with which those ropey young acting 'talents' who owe their careers to Rowling have turned on her lest they too be 'cancelled' for saying and believing things shared by the vast majority of the population) is that those who actually take the time to read what she had to say will see that her views are incredibly measured and sympathetic.

---

There's no fudge by the Guardian. Someone set up a hoax on them. That's all. You, like others, fell for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Your desperate to make this an issue.[emoji23]
If JK Rowling has been cancelled then it’s the worst attempt in history given her book sales even now, 25 years in. [emoji23] As for attacking actors because they hold a different view? Are they not allowed?

This thread has been running three months and it’s at about 70 posts. Given how much we love to debate issues people care about, you’d think it would be much bigger?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

No need to read the thread if you're not interested in it?

Might not be a priority issue among the dozen or so regular (almost exclusively male?) posters on here but there's no doubt the trans debate has become a polarising national debate in recent years. If you work among the teenage/student community in particular it's eye-popping to see how fiery an issue it is.

Sure, Rowling's legacy makes her uncancellable but it doesn't mean she just needs to accept the c**p that gets thrown at her.

If the criticism centred around how poorly written the Harry Potter books are then I might have some sympathy for it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

No need to read the thread if you're not interested in it?

Might not be a priority issue among the dozen or so regular (almost exclusively male?) posters on here but there's no doubt the trans debate has become a polarising national debate in recent years. If you work among the teenage/student community in particular it's eye-popping to see how fiery an issue it is.

Sure, Rowling's legacy makes her uncancellable but it doesn't mean she just needs to accept the c**p that gets thrown at her.

If the criticism centred around how poorly written the Harry Potter books are then I might have some sympathy for it...

---

What are your views on ‘trans rights’ in that case? Other than it being a national debate and people not being allowed to challenge JK Rowling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

What are your views on ‘trans rights’ in that case? Other than it being a national debate and people not being allowed to challenge JK Rowling?

---

Anyone can criticise her if they like but to demonise her for believing in biological sex is absurd IMHO.

I stand with her on that. As she points out if you erase the concept of sex you erase the lived reality of women. That's not a criticism of trans people, just a belief that we shouldn't abandon the current gender recognition legislation in favour of a gender free for all (ie whereby if a man simply says he's a woman he literally IS one - or vice versa). That, I feel, paves the way for as many practical issues as philosophical ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Anyone can criticise her if they like but to demonise her for believing in biological sex is absurd IMHO.

I stand with her on that. As she points out if you erase the concept of sex you erase the lived reality of women. That's not a criticism of trans people, just a belief that we shouldn't abandon the current gender recognition legislation in favour of a gender free for all (ie whereby if a man simply says he's a woman he literally IS one - or vice versa). That, I feel, paves the way for as many practical issues as philosophical ones.

---

Haven’t seen her demonised on here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Haven’t seen her demonised on here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I never said she had been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Anyone can criticise her if they like but to demonise her for believing in biological sex is absurd IMHO.

I stand with her on that. As she points out if you erase the concept of sex you erase the lived reality of women. That's not a criticism of trans people, just a belief that we shouldn't abandon the current gender recognition legislation in favour of a gender free for all (ie whereby if a man simply says he's a woman he literally IS one - or vice versa). That, I feel, paves the way for as many practical issues as philosophical ones.

---

I wonder what drives all of this stuff. It seems to be having a hugely disproportionate influence on the Scottish Government?

My instinct is to say that a significant majority of people don't really care all that much and in simplistic terms would agree that if you have a cock, then you're a man. You have the right to remove said cock, if you meet the criteria etc, otherwise go and pay for it. Equally, this applies to possessors of tits and fannies.

We are entering the realms of absurdity when advice to pregnant woman, and I use the term woman here deliberately, because as we all know, only biological females have the capacity to give birth, omits references to motherhood etc. That turns the whole thing into farce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

I wonder what drives all of this stuff. It seems to be having a hugely disproportionate influence on the Scottish Government?

My instinct is to say that a significant majority of people don't really care all that much and in simplistic terms would agree that if you have a cock, then you're a man. You have the right to remove said cock, if you meet the criteria etc, otherwise go and pay for it. Equally, this applies to possessors of tits and fannies.

We are entering the realms of absurdity when advice to pregnant woman, and I use the term woman here deliberately, because as we all know, only biological females have the capacity to give birth, omits references to motherhood etc. That turns the whole thing into farce.

---

It’s a hot topic for the Greens and due to the SNP/Green coalition that’s why it’s becoming more prominent. I’m sure they have to implement some sort of law by a certain date this year under the agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibs4185

It’s a hot topic for the Greens and due to the SNP/Green coalition that’s why it’s becoming more prominent. I’m sure they have to implement some sort of law by a certain date this year under the agreement.

---

Yep, gender reform bill to be introduced within the first year of this parliament. The price of getting the Greens on board. Essentially means a man can be legally declared a woman simply by stating he is one - and vice versa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Yep, gender reform bill to be introduced within the first year of this parliament. The price of getting the Greens on board. Essentially means a man can be legally declared a woman simply by stating he is one - and vice versa.

---

You would have thought the Greens had greener things to press an agenda with. Maybe starting with land use, planning processes and the demolition of so called green belt around our towns and cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Yep, gender reform bill to be introduced within the first year of this parliament. The price of getting the Greens on board. Essentially means a man can be legally declared a woman simply by stating he is one - and vice versa.

---

What a load of nonsense. Men should be able to call themselves women and live as one, as long as we agree there is a difference. It not fair but its true you were born a dude. You can't be a female rape counselor, you can't smash **** out of women in the ring. If you want to your pathetic get grip. I can't run the 100 metres at the European championships, its unfair but nature made me slow as ****

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

What a load of nonsense. Men should be able to call themselves women and live as one, as long as we agree there is a difference. It not fair but its true you were born a dude. You can't be a female rape counselor, you can't smash **** out of women in the ring. If you want to your pathetic get grip. I can't run the 100 metres at the European championships, its unfair but nature made me slow as ****

---

Perfectly represents my views on this so much as I care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Perfectly represents my views on this so much as I care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I’d say I’m not far away from this either. I’ll defend anyone’s right to dress and live as whatever gender makes them comfortable, and if they don’t want to call themselves a man OR a woman, so be it. It’s not harming anyone else and I’ll stand by them against any bullying or abuse they may get for their choices.

But I’ll stop short of denying that men and women exist through being born that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

You would have thought the Greens had greener things to press an agenda with. Maybe starting with land use, planning processes and the demolition of so called green belt around our towns and cities.

---

A well known Green Councillor has an investment property in Edinburgh that he rents out at full price. Harps on about affordable housing etc to anyone who will listen though.

Utter hypocrisy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

What a load of nonsense. Men should be able to call themselves women and live as one, as long as we agree there is a difference. It not fair but its true you were born a dude. You can't be a female rape counselor, you can't smash **** out of women in the ring. If you want to your pathetic get grip. I can't run the 100 metres at the European championships, its unfair but nature made me slow as ****

---

If everyone felt that way it wouldn't be such a contentious issue. Decent summary here of what it's all about:

https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/society/954778/the-trans-debate-a-fiercely-fought-battleground-in-uk-culture-wars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

I’d say I’m not far away from this either. I’ll defend anyone’s right to dress and live as whatever gender makes them comfortable, and if they don’t want to call themselves a man OR a woman, so be it. It’s not harming anyone else and I’ll stand by them against any bullying or abuse they may get for their choices.

But I’ll stop short of denying that men and women exist through being born that way.

---

Your viewpoint is described nowadays as Gender Critical and would be widely condemned by many.

Though it sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith_M

Your viewpoint is described nowadays as Gender Critical and would be widely condemned by many.

Though it sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

---

I imagine you're probably right, Keith. My use of the word gender rather than sex wasn't deliberate but I guess my failure to distinguish between the two would be condemned also.

This is why I haven't ventured too far into this debate :greengrin

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/p...-quit-25880300

Harsh to treat him like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/p...-quit-25880300

Harsh to treat him like this.

---

Love the comment at the end of the piece


"I guess having been a member of the green party, potential employers have quickly realised that he has no employable skills. Why else would he have been a green msp, other than to join the gravy train!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w pilton hibby

Love the comment at the end of the piece


"I guess having been a member of the green party, potential employers have quickly realised that he has no employable skills. Why else would he have been a green msp, other than to join the gravy train!"

---

Andy Wightman was probably the most respected Green due to his work on land reform, but he wanted to vote to allow rape victims the choice to choose the sex of the person examining them after a rape, but the Greens (and Lib Dems) were against this so threatened him with expulsion from the party.

Apparently that makes him transphobic, but I see nothing wrong with letting a woman choose a woman examiner after she has been raped by a man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

If everyone felt that way it wouldn't be such a contentious issue. Decent summary here of what it's all about:

https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/socie...k-culture-wars

---

I think what most people feel and the drivers of some political agendas have little in common.

I'm just quoting you because the link isn't active, for some reason quoting makes it accessible.

Surprised someone like Andy Wightman has had trouble finding work. He always seemed very capable. Blotted his record slightly with the leaked finding that NS broke ministerial code when she clearly hadn’t. Still, seems strange he can’t find work although he prob hasn’t had to try that hard given the package that MSP’s get when they lose their seat.
He is also a lesson to all MSP’s and MP’s who think that they are in any way unique. The vast majority are voted in on a party ticket and their personal qualities are not a factor at all in their election. He had no chance of winning a seat as an independent. There are very few who manage that.

As for the young greens? What a bunch of clowns. They won’t go very far in politics if they can’t avoid basic errors like they made last night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Surprised someone like Andy Wightman has had trouble finding work. He always seemed very capable. Blotted his record slightly with the leaked finding that NS broke ministerial code when she clearly hadn’t. Still, seems strange he can’t find work although he prob hasn’t had to try that hard given the package that MSP’s get when they lose their seat.
He is also a lesson to all MSP’s and MP’s who think that they are in any way unique. The vast majority are voted in on a party ticket and their personal qualities are not a factor at all in their election. He had no chance of winning a seat as an independent. There are very few who manage that.

As for the young greens? What a bunch of clowns. They won’t go very far in politics if they can’t avoid basic errors like they made last night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I thought the suspicion it was Fraser or ACH. Has it been confirmed it was Wightman ?

Also, I thought the committee did find the code was breached. It was the other chap who concluded differently?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skol

I thought the suspicion it was Fraser or ACH. Has it been confirmed it was Wightman ?

Also, I thought the committee did find the code was breached. It was the other chap who concluded differently?

---

They found her guilty of misleading parliament but not 'knowingly' IIRC.

http://bbc.in/3JOLbeG

Bit at the bottom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colr

http://bbc.in/3JOLbeG

Bit at the bottom.

---

Streeting handles interview well. Clearly a divisive issue but among a tiny amount of people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Streeting handles interview well. Clearly a divisive issue but among a tiny amount of people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

It is but taking up a disproportionate amount of debate. My local CLP spend more time talking about this subject than the housing crisis!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colr

http://bbc.in/3JOLbeG

Bit at the bottom.

---

More qoutes from him on this here. One of the few politicians I've seen not tying themselves in knots over this issue - and the wider cancel culture:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b1989029.html

I'm lost with this one

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/olym...?ocid=msedgntp

Controversial swimmer beaten by fellow transgender athlete in first meet since sparking outrage

Controversial swimmer Lia Thomas was crushed by fellow transgender athlete Iszac Henig in front of stunned onlookers in an Ivy League women's swim meet in the US.

Thomas, a*swimmer*at the University of Pennsylvania who transitioned from male to female in recent years, garnered attention when she smashed two US women's records in the 200m and 500m freestyle disciplines last year.

Making her return to competition over the weekend, Thomas took part in four races during an Ivy League meeting against rivals Dartmouth and Hale, and won her first two, but was beaten in her second two by Henig, who is currently transitioning from female to male.

Thomas finished fifth in the 100-yard freestyle in a time of 52.84 seconds, while Henig was over three seconds faster at 49.57 seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

I'm lost with this one

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/olym...?ocid=msedgntp

Controversial swimmer beaten by fellow transgender athlete in first meet since sparking outrage

Controversial swimmer Lia Thomas was crushed by fellow transgender athlete Iszac Henig in front of stunned onlookers in an Ivy League women's swim meet in the US.

Thomas, a*swimmer*at the University of Pennsylvania who transitioned from male to female in recent years, garnered attention when she smashed two US women's records in the 200m and 500m freestyle disciplines last year.

Making her return to competition over the weekend, Thomas took part in four races during an Ivy League meeting against rivals Dartmouth and Hale, and won her first two, but was beaten in her second two by Henig, who is currently transitioning from female to male.

Thomas finished fifth in the 100-yard freestyle in a time of 52.84 seconds, while Henig was over three seconds faster at 49.57 seconds.

---

Could be a route for me to have that football career that I always wanted!

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...ation-25909425

I’m all for giving trans people every right they need but there are certain jobs they can’t do and that surely isn’t incompatible with that?
There is no way someone who is born male can compete in woman’s sport. That’s a job that just isn’t open to them in the same way being a pole dancer in the pubic triangle isn’t open to me.
I don’t see this as incompatible with giving them the right to self identify.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think there has to be some acceptance that in this debate there are areas in which one person's rights inadvertently impact those of another person.

A couple of years ago I ran in a race that stated it was LGBTQIA+ friendly and informed all competitors they could run in whichever gender category they chose to. There was a not insignificant cash sum for the winners of the male and female categories. I finished 3rd overall and several places ahead of 1st female. Had I been so inclined under the rules of the race I could have looked at previous results, realised my likely performance would have placed me ahead of the historical female performance, entered that category and walked away with several hundred pounds I didn't really earn.

Of course that's a ridiculous scenario and something I doubt has happened more than a handful of times, if that, in the thousands of running events that take place in the UK every year. However there was a wider issue that caused a huge furore online. As part of their commitment to equality the organisers made all changing, toileting and showering facilities gender neutral. They also fixed the entry list after a ballot to ensure there was a 50/50 split of male and female runners. I used the changing facilities some time after I finished, watched others finish, had a beer and had a blether with others hanging around. The facility was exclusively dominated by males, recognisable because they looked like males and were wearing running numbers informing they had entered as males. There was, quite literally, not a single female using the facilities despite them making up 50% of the field.

I wa smart enough to realise this wasn't an issue to put my head above the parapet for. Ultimately it wasn't my battle because I had been able to shower and change. In the race group post race a few female runners did raise the issue and stated in future female exclusive changing facilities might be in order. Whilst there seemed to be broad support from females who had run the in race a very vocal group, who to my knowledge hadn't competed, went ballistic. They shouted down the posters as 'terfs' and 'transphobes', called them bigots and demanded they be banned from future races. I was mystified then and I'm mystified now. There was no suggestion the comments were anti trans or that they women in question were afraid of trans people. The concerns were around having showering facilties in which male sexual organs were on show openly and how this made some women feel uncomfortable. Would it be transphobic to say that a trans woman can't use female facilities? Quite probably. Is it transphobic to say women should have a safe space in which they don't have to view a ***** and testicles that they don't consent to? Surely not.

If we accept there may be a bit of a grey area around some people's rights there then surely trying to seek common ground and compromise is the best way forward rather than a back and forth shouting match? For me the obvious solution is what they have at the London Marathon finishers area. A changing area for males, females and a gender neutral area. I ran London this year and used the GN area because the male area was mobbed. It was quiet, still predominantly male but there was a small number of women using the facility. Problem almost solved surely.