The Trans Rights Debate

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Joanna Cherry has probably been one of the biggest opponents online. She is a nightmare for pro gra supporters who want to paint this as an anti spn thing. It's ridiculous, people from across the spectrum are for and against

In an amazing development - different people can oppose the same thing for different reasons! Shockeroony.

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

are you as engaged with other issues as you are with this one?

Yes - but it's dominating things at the moment.

[147lothian]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So are the likes of Joanna Cherry's and Ash Regan's concerns valid and real? If not what has motivated them?

People have real concerns about the GRA. Nine SNP MSP's broke party whip to vote against it, so people making out that folk are either for it or against along the lines of whether they support the SNP or not just doesn't stack up.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/people...y-whip-3896044

[TrumpIsAPeado]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

People have real concerns about the GRA. Nine SNP MSP's broke party whip to vote against it, so people making out that folk are either for it or against along the lines of whether they support the SNP or not just doesn't stack up.

https://www.herald.com/politics/2320...ition-reforms/

That's true. But it also works both ways. All the media focus is on "the split in the SNP", while completely ignoring the MSPs from other parties that voted in favour of the bill, despite the clear divisions from other MSPs in their party and the one's from their London counterparts.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this bill was backed by 86 MSPs to 39.

[AgentDaleCooper]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's ridiculous.

here - she actually went through the courts to seek the apology and didn't get it

here - basically intimidating people who publicly disagree with her.

i'm not saying she's a completely bad egg or anything, she just isn't the saint that she's made out to be either - she's a lawyer, after all. but these cases aren't exactly in the spirit of free and vigorous public discourse.

i'm not passing judgement on the validity of her concerns here.

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What would your "widespread engagement with society" look like?

That's a hell of a question. Ireland led on citizens assemblies on contentious subjects. It was tried here in a rather garbled way. That could be a mechanism. But there's a wider practice issue here. There's a fairly tight policy community in Scotland, encompassing the government, think tanks/lobbyists, third sector bodies and academics. Often people can jump between these groups - Kezia Dugdale would be an example (and that's not a criticism). It's very easy for legislators to focus their engagement there. People know how the system works and speak the same language. We've spoken before about consultations and how they aren't votes. But it's much harder to evaluate individual views than those of representative bodies. So it becomes a self justifying circle of opinion forming.

I think issues blow up in politico's face when they try to drive things through without really selling it to the wider public. On the Gender Reform bill, there have been complaints that a very small activist group of the policy community was coopted and given undue access to the process. Is it true? I don't know, but there does seem to be failings on who was allowed into and excluded from the policy making and legislative process. In addition, there wasn't a clear articulated policy position on what SG wanted to do that had been tested with the public - the SNP manifesto was vague on it. So an arguably skewed policy making environment and uncooperative legislative process has, in my view, led to flawed legislation. The government didn't take all of it's own side with it and the legislation was passed through a complex mix of motivations. It's arguable that Labour's confused position came down to simply not wanting to be seen to vote with the Tories.

Because of the process the legislation started springing leaks right away. There is confusion about definitions, a lack of understanding of some of the implications, and widespread public confusion. And then the catastrophic failures around the prisons issue. I believe had there been fuller open engagement earlier in the process then some of these issues might have been avoided. And we wouldn't have had the toxic debate where an SG Minister would choose to resign. It would also have been better if it hadn't got wrapped into the constitution question.

So how do we engage better? here's some ideas:

- Be upfront about what you want to do in advance
- Have clarity on what the issue is and how you want to solve it
- Don't just listen to the people who agree with you and don't exclude dissenting voices
- Consider ways to have a conversation like a citizens assembly or task force to actually consider issues and come up with options.

I'm conscious that those directly affected could say that it's not fair to have people debate their existence. The thing is, I don't think the majority of people are doing that. Even on here, I don't get the sense that the issue is opposition to trans people. But I do sense a significant pushback where people are excluded from the process and told their views are not valid.

As ever open to thoughts and critique.

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

here - she actually went through the courts to seek the apology and didn't get it

here - basically intimidating people who publicly disagree with her.

i'm not saying she's a completely bad egg or anything, she just isn't the saint that she's made out to be either - she's a lawyer, after all. but these cases aren't exactly in the spirit of free and vigorous public discourse.

i'm not passing judgement on the validity of her concerns here.

I think given the level of threat she has faced I'll give her a pass.https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,j...ed-to-rape-her

[He's here!]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's true. But it also works both ways. All the media focus is on "the split in the SNP", while completely ignoring the MSPs from other parties that voted in favour of the bill, despite the clear divisions from other MSPs in their party and the one's from their London counterparts.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this bill was backed by 86 MSPs to 39.

Pretty obvious the governing party, who are the architects of the bill, will command the most media attention on this issue.

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

here - she actually went through the courts to seek the apology and didn't get it

here - basically intimidating people who publicly disagree with her.

i'm not saying she's a completely bad egg or anything, she just isn't the saint that she's made out to be either - she's a lawyer, after all. but these cases aren't exactly in the spirit of free and vigorous public discourse.

i'm not passing judgement on the validity of her concerns here.

Kc challenges people over deformation is hardly a shock. I doubt anyone says she's a Saint, I disagree with half of what she says, but she and others put to bed the shout that it's an anti snp war

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's a hell of a question. Ireland led on citizens assemblies on contentious subjects. It was tried here in a rather garbled way. That could be a mechanism. But there's a wider practice issue here. There's a fairly tight policy community in Scotland, encompassing the government, think tanks/lobbyists, third sector bodies and academics. Often people can jump between these groups - Kezia Dugdale would be an example (and that's not a criticism). It's very easy for legislators to focus their engagement there. People know how the system works and speak the same language. We've spoken before about consultations and how they aren't votes. But it's much harder to evaluate individual views than those of representative bodies. So it becomes a self justifying circle of opinion forming.

I think issues blow up in politico's face when they try to drive things through without really selling it to the wider public. On the Gender Reform bill, there have been complaints that a very small activist group of the policy community was coopted and given undue access to the process. Is it true? I don't know, but there does seem to be failings on who was allowed into and excluded from the policy making and legislative process. In addition, there wasn't a clear articulated policy position on what SG wanted to do that had been tested with the public - the SNP manifesto was vague on it. So an arguably skewed policy making environment and uncooperative legislative process has, in my view, led to flawed legislation. The government didn't take all of it's own side with it and the legislation was passed through a complex mix of motivations. It's arguable that Labour's confused position came down to simply not wanting to be seen to vote with the Tories.

Because of the process the legislation started springing leaks right away. There is confusion about definitions, a lack of understanding of some of the implications, and widespread public confusion. And then the catastrophic failures around the prisons issue. I believe had there been fuller open engagement earlier in the process then some of these issues might have been avoided. And we wouldn't have had the toxic debate where an SG Minister would choose to resign. It would also have been better if it hadn't got wrapped into the constitution question.

So how do we engage better? here's some ideas:

- Be upfront about what you want to do in advance
- Have clarity on what the issue is and how you want to solve it
- Don't just listen to the people who agree with you and don't exclude dissenting voices
- Consider ways to have a conversation like a citizens assembly or task force to actually consider issues and come up with options.

I'm conscious that those directly affected could say that it's not fair to have people debate their existence. The thing is, I don't think the majority of people are doing that. Even on here, I don't get the sense that the issue is opposition to trans people. But I do sense a significant pushback where people are excluded from the process and told their views are not valid.

As ever open to thoughts and critique.

Ta.

I'm interested in how the Irish system is viewed. I have colleagues in Ireland who think their system of public engagement is poor, that it is weighted too much towards the religious establishment. They are envious of our system, as are many in England.

Those who do engage with the political process always judge it on how "they" have been treated. I have been involved in 5 or 6 exercises like this. I have experienced feelings of it being "superb" and of it being "biased as f". Only once did I feel that the Government of the day "got it right". That kind of supports my point.

The system isn't perfect; any consultation exercise which encourages cutting-and-pasting of the same points ad nauseam is bound to be flawed. But ,returning to my first point, IMO it's more open than it appears to be with our neighbours.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Pretty obvious the governing party, who are the architects of the bill, will command the most media attention on this issue.

Then you would expect that media attention to be positive. Being the governing party and managing to gain cross party support to achieve a rather convincing result.

But we both know that it's anything but positive.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think anyone could confidently provide a simple yes or no answer.

So it's no until proven otherwise which is a simple yes or no answer without the whole whataboutery.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So it's no until proven otherwise.

One thing to come out of the last round of amendments was a recognition of the need to issue guidance to all public bodies on the practical implications of the GRRA.

For obvious reasons, that won't be happening for a while.

[AgentDaleCooper]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Kc challenges people over deformation is hardly a shock. I doubt anyone says she's a Saint, I disagree with half of what she says, but she and others put to bed the shout that it's an anti snp war

it's not a shock, but it's not really ok either.

i'm certainly not saying that the whole thing is an anti-SNP war - what i mean, though, is that as of the UK parliament blocking the bill, the issue is being weaponised in the press to undermine Sturgeon and by extension, independence. i absolutely don't hold Cherry in any way accountable for that, obvioulsy.

[AgentDaleCooper]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think given the level of threat she has faced I'll give her a pass.https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,j...ed-to-rape-her

it's absolutely appalling what's been thrown at her, and at JKR, and pretty much any woman with a public profile who has spoken out on the issue. that doesn't make it ok to intimidate people who disagree with you.

[archie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So it's no until proven otherwise which is a simple yes or no answer without the whole whataboutery.

There's no whataboutery and it's not a yes or no. Legal experts have pointed to potential issues that can only be resolved by the courts. The idea that it's a no until proven otherwise doesn't really stack up I'm afraid.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There's no whataboutery and it's not a yes or no. Legal experts have pointed to potential issues that can only be resolved by the courts. The idea that it's a no until proven otherwise doesn't really stack up I'm afraid.

Has anyone been refused same sex care?

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So it's no until proven otherwise which is a simple yes or no answer without the whole whataboutery.

Here's a large study on that question with points made from both sides. No one could give a definite answer to yes or no. There is many laws and views that contradict each other. Its really silly to just ask for a yes or no to such an argued over question with many different interpretations

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2022/05/20/the-potential-for-gra-reform-to-affect-who-can-access-single-sex-services-briefing-for-msps/

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Here's a large study on that question with points made from both sides. No one could give a definite answer to yes or no. There is many laws and views that contradict each other. Its really silly to just ask for a yes or no to such an argued over question with many different interpretations

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2022/05/20/the-potential-for-gra-reform-to-affect-who-can-access-single-sex-services-briefing-for-msps/

Has anyone been refused same sex care?

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Has anyone been refused same sex care?

How would that ever be public, its a ridiculous question. What has went public is single sex prisons, female shelters and rape crisis centres having trans females

[James310]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Has anyone been refused same sex care?

Do you know the answer? If not how do you know if it's true or false?

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How would that ever be public, its a ridiculous question. What has went public is single sex prisons, female shelters and rape crisis centres having trans females

I'm talking about same sex care, it's been put out there as a problem. I just want to know if anyone has been refused it due to the transgender bill. If so then please point me to an example, otherwise it's pure fear mongering.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm talking about same sex care, it's been put out there as a problem. I just want to know if anyone has been refused it due to the transgender bill. If so then please point me to an example, otherwise it's pure fear mongering.

The bill isn't law yet, so it can't have been.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm talking about same sex care, it's been put out there as a problem. I just want to know if anyone has been refused it due to the transgender bill. If so then please point me to an example, otherwise it's pure fear mongering.

The transgender bill isn’t law so no.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Do you know the answer? If not how do you know if it's true or false?

Something like that would be all over the scare tabloids. Until I see evidence that it's actually happened then I'll file it under scare mongering.

[James310]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Something like that would be all over the scare tabloids. Until I see evidence that it's actually happened then I'll file it under scare mongering.

So you don't know either. 👍

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The transgender bill isn’t law so no.

There, that wasn't too difficult.

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm talking about same sex care, it's been put out there as a problem. I just want to know if anyone has been refused it due to the transgender bill. If so then please point me to an example, otherwise it's pure fear mongering.

It's been put out there as one of many female rights that could be eroded. There was an article here about a heavily disabled woman who had short term memory loss. She said she was petrified of a trans female having the right as a legal female to give her intimate care. Someone on here said her fears are invalid because she is worried about hypotheticals. It was one of the worst things I've read on the thread. It's about hard gained rights being taken away.

But to answer your ridiculous question again. That information about someone's care would not be public knowledge. The person also wouldn't be able to ask to see a gra by law so wouldn't know, they would be legally female

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So you don't know either. 👍

But you guys are claiming it's a real and present danger, surely you can back up your claims with facts.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's been put out there as one of many female rights that could be eroded. There was an article here about a heavily disabled woman who had short term memory loss. She said she was petrified of a trans female having the right as a legal female to give her intimate care. Someone on here said her fears are invalid because she is worried about hypotheticals. It was one of the worst things I've read on the thread. It's about hard gained rights being taken away.

But to answer your ridiculous question again. That information about someone's care would not be public knowledge. The person also wouldn't be able to ask to see a gra by law so wouldn't know, they would be legally female

Did that woman have care refused because of her valid fears or did she have a transgender female forced upon her. I'm guessing she more than likely received care from a biological female.