The Trans Rights Debate

[He's here!]

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

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.

[Colr]

http://bbc.in/3JOLbeG

Bit at the bottom.

[Ozyhibby]

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

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

[Colr]

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

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!

[He's here!]

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

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

[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.

[Colr]

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

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!

[James310]

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

[Ozyhibby]

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

[Pretty Boy]

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.

[He's here!]

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

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

Perfectly reasoned, rational comments which will nevertheless draw venomous flak for certain quarters.

[James310]

Can't see many thinking this is a good idea, having an 11 yr old myself then I am pretty staggered by this and can't imagine the Scottish Government going along with this at all.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...land-qpvq5bk2x

Children as young as 12 should be allowed to immediately seek a legal change to their gender without a “reflection period”, a charity that is funded by the taxpayer has advised ministers.
Scottish government proposals to fast-track gender changes would require people to live in their acquired gender for three months instead of the present two years before being allowed to apply for a gender recognition certificate.

However, Children in Scotland (CIS) said that such a requirement could be detrimental to mental health. In a submission to the Scottish government it states: “We believe this is an arbitrary time period that does not reflect the issues that many trans young people face. It presents an unnecessary time barrier which could have negative effects on trans young people’s mental health. We would prefer a move towards a formalised self-identification model where people can legally change gender at a time chosen by them.”

The charity said that its discussions with trans young people through LGBT Youth Scotland, which is also opposed to the three-month requirement, suggests “they do not make the decision to change gender lightly and have spent time considering this decision before applying”.

It has also recommended to ministers that they rethink their plan to reduce the minimum age for a gender recognition certificate from 18 to 16, arguing that they should instead consider lowering it to 12 and with no need for parental consent.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission in Scotland agrees with CIS that a period of reflection is unnecessary, provided that applicants can fully demonstrate they understand the legal, social and personal implications of a legal change to their status.

Last night the commission said: “This is an evolving issue which we are constantly considering, and we continue to look at it as legislative proposals emerge.”

For Women Scotland (FWS), a feminist group that campaigns for sex-based rights and says the gender recognition reforms will erode women’s rights, described the intervention by CIS as “extraordinary”, especially as some people would go on to switch gender again. FWS said: “As the number of detransitioners rises, it is downright irresponsible to hurry vulnerable children, some as young as 12 years old, into decisions at what is often a confusing period.”

The Scottish government said it would bring forward the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. It said: “We are committed to making changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to improve and simplify the process for a trans person to gain legal recognition. We remain committed to developing guidance on realising trans rights while continuing to protect women’s rights.”

[Since90+2]

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

Can't see many thinking this is a good idea, having an 11 yr old myself then I am pretty staggered by this and can't imagine the Scottish Government going along with this at all.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...land-qpvq5bk2x

Children as young as 12 should be allowed to immediately seek a legal change to their gender without a “reflection period”, a charity that is funded by the taxpayer has advised ministers.
Scottish government proposals to fast-track gender changes would require people to live in their acquired gender for three months instead of the present two years before being allowed to apply for a gender recognition certificate.

However, Children in Scotland (CIS) said that such a requirement could be detrimental to mental health. In a submission to the Scottish government it states: “We believe this is an arbitrary time period that does not reflect the issues that many trans young people face. It presents an unnecessary time barrier which could have negative effects on trans young people’s mental health. We would prefer a move towards a formalised self-identification model where people can legally change gender at a time chosen by them.”

The charity said that its discussions with trans young people through LGBT Youth Scotland, which is also opposed to the three-month requirement, suggests “they do not make the decision to change gender lightly and have spent time considering this decision before applying”.

It has also recommended to ministers that they rethink their plan to reduce the minimum age for a gender recognition certificate from 18 to 16, arguing that they should instead consider lowering it to 12 and with no need for parental consent.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission in Scotland agrees with CIS that a period of reflection is unnecessary, provided that applicants can fully demonstrate they understand the legal, social and personal implications of a legal change to their status.

Last night the commission said: “This is an evolving issue which we are constantly considering, and we continue to look at it as legislative proposals emerge.”

For Women Scotland (FWS), a feminist group that campaigns for sex-based rights and says the gender recognition reforms will erode women’s rights, described the intervention by CIS as “extraordinary”, especially as some people would go on to switch gender again. FWS said: “As the number of detransitioners rises, it is downright irresponsible to hurry vulnerable children, some as young as 12 years old, into decisions at what is often a confusing period.”

The Scottish government said it would bring forward the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. It said: “We are committed to making changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to improve and simplify the process for a trans person to gain legal recognition. We remain committed to developing guidance on realising trans rights while continuing to protect women’s rights.”

This stuff needs to be stopped in its track now. It's utterly ridiculous.

[Bishop Hibee]

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

This stuff needs to be stopped in its track now. It's utterly ridiculous.

Agree 100%. Quite disturbing really. Nobody is born into the wrong body.

[James310]

https://fairplayforwomen.com/scottis...sex-in-census/

[AgentDaleCooper]

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

Agree 100%. Quite disturbing really. Nobody is born into the wrong body.

that's an extremely loaded statement. i'm not saying that they are or aren't, but gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition, and sufferers feel exactly that, with gender re-assignment surgery often being the only remedy. having a moral stance about a medical condition is pretty dodgy at best.

i totally get how people find things alarming when it is something that could effect their own children, but the most important thing if you want to have an opinion on a complex issue is to learn about the facts of the issue, and how often it is that these fears are realised - generally speaking, they very rarely are, if ever. off the cuff moral statements from both sides do nothing to help anyone.

[Moulin Yarns]

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

that's an extremely loaded statement. i'm not saying that they are or aren't, but gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition, and sufferers feel exactly that, with gender re-assignment surgery often being the only remedy. having a moral stance about a medical condition is pretty dodgy at best.

i totally get how people find things alarming when it is something that could effect their own children, but the most important thing if you want to have an opinion on a complex issue is to learn about the facts of the issue, and how often it is that these fears are realised - generally speaking, they very rarely are, if ever. off the cuff moral statements from both sides do nothing to help anyone.

👍

My niece has a son with autistic signals who refers to everyone as she, for example I'm an aunt rather than uncle, he is 9 and still plays with barbie dolls. Is this wrong?

[Crunchie]

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

https://fairplayforwomen.com/scottis...sex-in-census/

Thank goodness for women like Dr Nicola Williams, you have to wonder why the SG would go down this route and what's their agenda.

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-60141382

Think the EHRC are right to suggest a pause to better assess the implications of this legislation.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-60141382

Think the EHRC are right to suggest a pause to better assess the implications of this legislation.

The EHRC are playing games IMO.

I've been involved in enough SG consultations to know the process. Whilst (despite what Patrick Harvey says) they are entitled to participate in the consultation, even though they are a UK Government body, they should be doing so within the protocols of that process.

To do what they did publicly both undermines the SG process, and attempts to give their opinion more weight than it is entitled to.

Whilst their argument may have merit, there are ways of doing it. Not respecting those ways does them no favours .

[Crunchie]

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

The EHRC are playing games IMO.

I've been involved in enough SG consultations to know the process. Whilst (despite what Patrick Harvey says) they are entitled to participate in the consultation, even though they are a UK Government body, they should be doing so within the protocols of that process.

To do what they did publicly both undermines the SG process, and attempts to give their opinion more weight than it is entitled to.

Whilst their argument may have merit, there are ways of doing it. Not respecting those ways does them no favours .

I think it has every right to be out there in the public domain.

[James310]

Visits from the Police now to see what someone was thinking. No crime, just to see what someone was thinking.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...012e1a82587c25


The founder of a charity supporting women who have suffered domestic violence has been interviewed by police after she was reported for hate crime after stressing its female-only services.

Nicola Murray was left “shocked and panicky” when detectives arrived at her door after an online announcement by Brodie’s Trust that it would no longer refer women to Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC).

Talking to the officers, Murray, from Stanley, near Perth, was taken aback when she said they told her: “We need to speak to you to ascertain what your thinking was behind making your statement.”

Murray, 43, founded Brodie’s Trust in 2018 to support women from all over the world “who’ve suffered pregnancy loss through domestic violence or forced termination” by directing victims to local services for help.

She and a colleague determined its revised policy towards ERCC following statements by Mridul Wadhwa, the trans woman appointed its CEO last year, who claimed “bigoted” victims of sexual violence should expect to be “challenged on their prejudices”.

ERCC clarified its position, saying it was not seeking to “re-educate survivors” but Wadhwa angered some feminists again when she accused opponents of controversial reforms to the Gender Recognition Act of legitimising far-right discrimination of trans people.

Ministers want to change the act to make it easier for people to change their legally recognised gender. A bill is expected at Holyrood this year. Earlier this week the Equality and Human Rights Commission told them “more detailed consideration is needed”.

In September Murray posted a message on social media on behalf of Brodie’s Trust saying: “Due to deeply concerning comments made by the current CEO of ERCC we have taken the decision to no longer signpost to this service. We cannot in all conscience send vulnerable women to the service in its current state.” The message continued: “We have no interest in our clients’ religion, sexuality nor political views . . . We are a women-only service run by women for women and will not be intimidated into changing our stance on this matter.”

Detectives from Edinburgh arrived at her door on November 4. Murray said: “I ushered them through to the living room. The first thing they said was, ‘Some of your tweets have been brought to our attention.’ When they brought out the screengrabs of the statement, I said, ‘Really?’

They said, ‘Yeah, we just have to speak to you. You’ve not said anything hateful, there isn’t a crime here.’

“I said: ‘So why are you here?’ They said, ‘Because we need to speak to you to ascertain what your thinking was behind making your statement.’

“I said, ‘Protecting women and letting them know that when they come to us they have a woman-only space, and we won’t let anyone in who won’t maintain that.’”

Murray said: “Then they said, ‘We better watch what we are saying — we don’t want to be quoted as police officers saying such and such.’

I said, ‘Don’t worry about that. It is insanity, isn’t it?’ They said, ‘It is.’ They wished me well and went away.

“I was taken aback by the whole thing. I don’t believe anyone who has read that statement could view it as hateful. It was simply an affirmation of what we are doing: we are a women-only space, we aren’t going to change that, given what we do. Men cannot get pregnant, therefore they cannot experience a miscarriage and domestic violence. Why would they even want to come?”

Marion Millar, an Airdrie accountant, was arrested last year under the 2003 Telecommunications Act for tweets deemed hateful, including one with ribbons in the colours of the suffragettes, tied in a supposed noose. All charges were later dropped.

Police Scotland did not confirm details of the interview at Murray’s house, but she has a photograph of the two officers entering her house.

Last week The Times reported a warning from Police Scotland that it could not comply fully with the demands of the new Hate Crime Act until next year, because officers were struggling to cope with a surge in reported offences caused by Twitter rows.

A 76 per cent rise in reported crimes in which the transgender issue was the aggravating factor (76 reports) contrasted with 6.1 per cent growth in all hate crime reports (3,782) reflecting the impact of online rows about trans rights and gender identity, according to the Scottish Police Federation.

The figures prompted a robust debate on social media. Whadwa posted: “Since 2019, I have reported hate to the police more times than I can count. No charges, no convictions. All those things happened to me. There are witnesses and they suffered with me, my family, my friends and colleagues and others that matter to me.”

Wadhwa and ERCC were approached for comment. Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie said: “Hate crime and discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable. Police Scotland will investigate every report of a hate crime or hate incident.”

In a statement the Scottish Police Federation said: “QED.”

[He's here!]

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

The EHRC are playing games IMO.

I've been involved in enough SG consultations to know the process. Whilst (despite what Patrick Harvey says) they are entitled to participate in the consultation, even though they are a UK Government body, they should be doing so within the protocols of that process.

To do what they did publicly both undermines the SG process, and attempts to give their opinion more weight than it is entitled to.

Whilst their argument may have merit, there are ways of doing it. Not respecting those ways does them no favours .

I don't get the sense that they're failing to respect procedure or playing games. Their argument, as you say, has merit and the call for a pause seems respectfully put. This is a more significant issue than many probably realise and the SG appear to have had their hands tied thanks their deal with the Greens, which commits them to rush this legislation through in the first year of the current parliament.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I don't get the sense that they're failing to respect procedure or playing games. Their argument, as you say, has merit and the call for a pause seems respectfully put. This is a more significant issue than many probably realise and the SG appear to have had their hands tied thanks their deal with the Greens, which commits them to rush this legislation through in the first year of the current parliament.

My point is about the political games that are being played out here. A UKG agency is putting pressure on the SG,which is naughty against the backdrop of the Indy debate. There are many other, less public and less contentious, ways that could have been done.

FTR, I said their case "may" have merit, not "does".

[He's here!]

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

My point is about the political games that are being played out here. A UKG agency is putting pressure on the SG,which is naughty against the backdrop of the Indy debate. There are many other, less public and less contentious, ways that could have been done.

FTR, I said their case "may" have merit, not "does".

Fair enough, you clearly know more about these consultation processes than I do, although I'm not convinced politics influences the thinking of most on the wider gender recognition issue. I certainly don't see the indy debate as a significant player here. The EHRC viewpoint will chime with many IMHO.

[superfurryhibby]

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

Visits from the Police now to see what someone was thinking. No crime, just to see what someone was thinking.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...012e1a82587c25


The founder of a charity supporting women who have suffered domestic violence has been interviewed by police after she was reported for hate crime after stressing its female-only services.

Nicola Murray was left “shocked and panicky” when detectives arrived at her door after an online announcement by Brodie’s Trust that it would no longer refer women to Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC).

Talking to the officers, Murray, from Stanley, near Perth, was taken aback when she said they told her: “We need to speak to you to ascertain what your thinking was behind making your statement.”

Murray, 43, founded Brodie’s Trust in 2018 to support women from all over the world “who’ve suffered pregnancy loss through domestic violence or forced termination” by directing victims to local services for help.

She and a colleague determined its revised policy towards ERCC following statements by Mridul Wadhwa, the trans woman appointed its CEO last year, who claimed “bigoted” victims of sexual violence should expect to be “challenged on their prejudices”.

ERCC clarified its position, saying it was not seeking to “re-educate survivors” but Wadhwa angered some feminists again when she accused opponents of controversial reforms to the Gender Recognition Act of legitimising far-right discrimination of trans people.

Ministers want to change the act to make it easier for people to change their legally recognised gender. A bill is expected at Holyrood this year. Earlier this week the Equality and Human Rights Commission told them “more detailed consideration is needed”.

In September Murray posted a message on social media on behalf of Brodie’s Trust saying: “Due to deeply concerning comments made by the current CEO of ERCC we have taken the decision to no longer signpost to this service. We cannot in all conscience send vulnerable women to the service in its current state.” The message continued: “We have no interest in our clients’ religion, sexuality nor political views . . . We are a women-only service run by women for women and will not be intimidated into changing our stance on this matter.”

Detectives from Edinburgh arrived at her door on November 4. Murray said: “I ushered them through to the living room. The first thing they said was, ‘Some of your tweets have been brought to our attention.’ When they brought out the screengrabs of the statement, I said, ‘Really?’

They said, ‘Yeah, we just have to speak to you. You’ve not said anything hateful, there isn’t a crime here.’

“I said: ‘So why are you here?’ They said, ‘Because we need to speak to you to ascertain what your thinking was behind making your statement.’

“I said, ‘Protecting women and letting them know that when they come to us they have a woman-only space, and we won’t let anyone in who won’t maintain that.’”

Murray said: “Then they said, ‘We better watch what we are saying — we don’t want to be quoted as police officers saying such and such.’

I said, ‘Don’t worry about that. It is insanity, isn’t it?’ They said, ‘It is.’ They wished me well and went away.

“I was taken aback by the whole thing. I don’t believe anyone who has read that statement could view it as hateful. It was simply an affirmation of what we are doing: we are a women-only space, we aren’t going to change that, given what we do. Men cannot get pregnant, therefore they cannot experience a miscarriage and domestic violence. Why would they even want to come?”

Marion Millar, an Airdrie accountant, was arrested last year under the 2003 Telecommunications Act for tweets deemed hateful, including one with ribbons in the colours of the suffragettes, tied in a supposed noose. All charges were later dropped.

Police Scotland did not confirm details of the interview at Murray’s house, but she has a photograph of the two officers entering her house.

Last week The Times reported a warning from Police Scotland that it could not comply fully with the demands of the new Hate Crime Act until next year, because officers were struggling to cope with a surge in reported offences caused by Twitter rows.

A 76 per cent rise in reported crimes in which the transgender issue was the aggravating factor (76 reports) contrasted with 6.1 per cent growth in all hate crime reports (3,782) reflecting the impact of online rows about trans rights and gender identity, according to the Scottish Police Federation.

The figures prompted a robust debate on social media. Whadwa posted: “Since 2019, I have reported hate to the police more times than I can count. No charges, no convictions. All those things happened to me. There are witnesses and they suffered with me, my family, my friends and colleagues and others that matter to me.”

Wadhwa and ERCC were approached for comment. Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie said: “Hate crime and discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable. Police Scotland will investigate every report of a hate crime or hate incident.”

In a statement the Scottish Police Federation said: “QED.”

The eagerness of ERCC to involve the Police and the ridiculous of the Police indulging this is very worrying. How could anyone consider this tweet offensive.

"In September Murray posted a message on social media on behalf of Brodie’s Trust saying: “Due to deeply concerning comments made by the current CEO of ERCC we have taken the decision to no longer signpost to this service. We cannot in all conscience send vulnerable women to the service in its current state.” The message continued: “We have no interest in our clients’ religion, sexuality nor political views . . . We are a women-only service run by women for women and will not be intimidated into changing our stance on this matter.”

Here's a quote from an organisation that has the polar opposite political outlook from myself.

Freedom of speech is the foundation for democracy. Without freedom of speech there is no other freedom which is why tyrants always eliminate freedom of speech first. Leftists in America are determined to eliminate freedom of speech by enforcing their own code of political correctness which labels any opposing speech as hate speech. Speakers with conservative points of view are disinvited or intimidated through organized boycotts and violent protests. It is unAmerican to disallow the expression of opposing views but Leftists are tyrannical in their demand for conformity to their approved rhetoric.

Attempting to read a bit more about gender identity and why it has risen to such to political prominence, I find that, via a basic web search, that this is a widely held view. IThe first few pages of my browser are fuil of independent right wing articles that echo these views.

I'm amazed at how these left wing activists, who have no manifest organised party political power in the USA and UK, can be so influential and exert such leverage on governments? This then leads me to question who gains from being forced down a path that will only open the doors to many other beliefs /thinking becoming hateful.

[He's here!]

Observer editorial spot on re why the Scottish Government have called this wrong IMHO:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...droidApp_Other

[James310]

A Swiss man has self identified as a woman and now apparently gets his pension a year earlier. 🤔

[superfurryhibby]

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

Observer editorial spot on re why the Scottish Government have called this wrong IMHO:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...droidApp_Other

The key part of the article

"But because reforming the Gender Recognition Act will affect another protected characteristic, sex, it is critically important that any proposals to reform it in the UK are informed by proper consultation with all those affected. That has not happened in Scotland. Instead, Nicola Sturgeon has simply denied such a conflict exists. Women raising legitimate concerns that opinion polls show are widely shared have been tarnished as “transphobic” by Scottish politicians.

This is politicians fomenting rather than diffusing contested debates. It has created a culture where women of the view that biological sex cannot be wholly replaced by gender identity in law – a belief itself protected by equalities legislation – get harassed out of jobs and visited by the police as a result of expressing lawful and legitimate views. Everyone loses: in a world where some people are bullied out of the democratic process of debate and consultation, it is impossible to build social consensus around the balancing of rights of two groups facing significant discrimination".

The women visited by Police (WTF was that about) is the person who made the statement I quoted a few posts ago. Given how hard it can be to get out thinly stretched Police to attend actual crimes (like bicycle theft/sale where a person has identified their bike for sale on Gumtree and the like), I just find it unbelievable that the (admittedly reluctant Polis) can find time to indulge this pish.

Much as I support Independence, I'm not a fan of Sturgeon and the SNP.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

The key part of the article

"But because reforming the Gender Recognition Act will affect another protected characteristic, sex, it is critically important that any proposals to reform it in the UK are informed by proper consultation with all those affected. That has not happened in Scotland. Instead, Nicola Sturgeon has simply denied such a conflict exists. Women raising legitimate concerns that opinion polls show are widely shared have been tarnished as “transphobic” by Scottish politicians.

This is politicians fomenting rather than diffusing contested debates. It has created a culture where women of the view that biological sex cannot be wholly replaced by gender identity in law – a belief itself protected by equalities legislation – get harassed out of jobs and visited by the police as a result of expressing lawful and legitimate views. Everyone loses: in a world where some people are bullied out of the democratic process of debate and consultation, it is impossible to build social consensus around the balancing of rights of two groups facing significant discrimination".

The women visited by Police (WTF was that about) is the person who made the statement I quoted a few posts ago. Given how hard it can be to get out thinly stretched Police to attend actual crimes (like bicycle theft/sale where a person has identified their bike for sale on Gumtree and the like), I just find it unbelievable that the (admittedly reluctant Polis) can find time to indulge this pish.

Much as I support Independence, I'm not a fan of Sturgeon and the SNP.

That bit isn't correct. There have been 2 consultations so far; the second of which attracted the highest number of responses that there has been for any SG consultation.

The point of these consultations is, as it says, to consult and amend draft legislation if appropriate. That process is continuing, and will continue through committees until such times as the debate gets to Parliament.