The Trans Rights Debate

[superfurryhibby]

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

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.

Who was consulted? I haven't seen reference to this, although perhaps this has been discussed on here before. I will be straight onto the Observer to point this out. Here's hoping that common sense prevails, or that some SNP MSP's refuse to toe the party line.

I'm intrigued by how some issues get a public hearing in this way and others never make it to any meaningful consultation. I confess to having little understanding of how politics at Holyrood operates and what drives it. Was this part of the SNP manifesto for example? These are many issues that I suspect are much more burning for the average man/woman (should that be person?) yet they aren't on the agenda for consultation and legislative change (like a national energy company or encroachment on to green belt for housing, failure to address the lack of social housing).

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Who was consulted? I haven't seen reference to this, although perhaps this has been discussed on here before. I will be straight onto the Observer to point this out. Here's hoping that common sense prevails, or that some SNP MSP's refuse to toe the party line.

I'm intrigued by how some issues get a public hearing in this way and others never make it to any meaningful consultation. I confess to having little understanding of how politics at Holyrood operates and what drives the agendas. Was this part of the SNP manifesto for example? These are many issues that I suspect are much more burning for the average man/woman (should that be person?) yet they aren't on the agenda for consultation and legislative change (like a national energy company or encroachment on to green belt for housing, failure to address the lack of social housing).

Everyone

It's a public process, and anyone with a view (from anywhere, not just Scotland) can contribute. The results of the second consultation are here:-

https://www.gov.scot/publications/ge...tion-exercise/

Just because the SG had a particular proposal, doesn't mean that will become law. That's the point of the exercise.

[superfurryhibby]

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

Everyone

It's a public process, and anyone with a view (from anywhere, not just Scotland) can contribute. The results of the second consultation are here:-

https://www.gov.scot/publications/ge...tion-exercise/

Just because the SG had a particular proposal, doesn't mean that will become law. That's the point of the exercise.

The Observer did also say this

"The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is the statutory regulator of the Equality Act. Last week, it told the Scottish government that its proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which allows trans people to change the way their sex is recorded for legal purposes, should be paused because the consultation on these changes has not adequately taken into account their impact on women’s sex-based rights. The Scottish government is proposing to move to a system whereby people can change their sex for legal purposes through self-declaration, instead of needing a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria".

They imply that the Scottish Government's consultations weren't allowing other viewpoints to be fully heard.

The consultation said this;
Those broadly opposed to a statutory declaration-based system

"These respondents generally thought a convincing case for change has not been made, and that the current system is broadly fit for purpose. This was often connected to a view that the draft Bill should simply be scrapped and to specific concerns about the removal of the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before receiving a GRC. These respondents were often very concerned about the potential impact of the proposed changes on society in general, but on the safety and wellbeing of women and girls in particular. They generally disagreed with reducing the age at which a person can apply for legal gender recognition to 16.

This was the perspective of many individual respondents and the considerable majority of the Women's Groups and Religious or Belief Bodies that responded"

Is the Observer deliberately misleading it's readers on this issue?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

The Observer did also say this

"The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is the statutory regulator of the Equality Act. Last week, it told the Scottish government that its proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which allows trans people to change the way their sex is recorded for legal purposes, should be paused because the consultation on these changes has not adequately taken into account their impact on women’s sex-based rights. The Scottish government is proposing to move to a system whereby people can change their sex for legal purposes through self-declaration, instead of needing a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria".

They imply that the Scottish Government's consultations weren't allowing other viewpoints to be fully heard.

The consultation said this;
Those broadly opposed to a statutory declaration-based system

"These respondents generally thought a convincing case for change has not been made, and that the current system is broadly fit for purpose. This was often connected to a view that the draft Bill should simply be scrapped and to specific concerns about the removal of the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before receiving a GRC. These respondents were often very concerned about the potential impact of the proposed changes on society in general, but on the safety and wellbeing of women and girls in particular. They generally disagreed with reducing the age at which a person can apply for legal gender recognition to 16.

This was the perspective of many individual respondents and the considerable majority of the Women's Groups and Religious or Belief Bodies that responded"

Is the Observer deliberately misleading it's readers on this issue?

I have no idea. The process is transparent, so I'm not sure why they would do.

But the implication underlined in bold is just plain wrong.

[Mr Grieves]

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.”

Noticed the times have removed this article and issued a correction (not for the first time btw)

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Noticed the times have removed this article and issued a correction (not for the first time btw)

Do you have the text of the correction?

[Mr Grieves]

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

Do you have the text of the correction?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corrections-and-clarifications-5phnn0xh2

Our article “Police interview charity chief after tweet ending referrals to rape centre” (Jan 29) and subsequent articles reported that Police Scotland interviewed Nicola Murray, the head of the Brodie’s Trust domestic abuse support group, about a reported hate crime. The police have now confirmed she was not the subject of a complaint or investigation.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corrections-and-clarifications-5phnn0xh2

Our article “Police interview charity chief after tweet ending referrals to rape centre” (Jan 29) and subsequent articles reported that Police Scotland interviewed Nicola Murray, the head of the Brodie’s Trust domestic abuse support group, about a reported hate crime. The police have now confirmed she was not the subject of a complaint or investigation.

Ta.

I'm now curious as to how this story arose. It won't be the last time that such nonsense happens.

[500miles]

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

Ta.

I'm now curious as to how this story arose. It won't be the last time that such nonsense happens.

Having dug a bit, it does appear that the woman was visited by the police, but it sounds like a story that happened down south which was recorded as a non-crime hate incident.

Its looks like she has made her twitter private. She claims to run a domestic abuse charity, but it doesn't appear on the charity register. She was also in the paper about not wearing a mask because of ptsd.

Smells grifty.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Having dug a bit, it does appear that the woman was visited by the police, but it sounds like a story that happened down south which was recorded as a non-crime hate incident.

Its looks like she has made her twitter private. She claims to run a domestic abuse charity, but it doesn't appear on the charity register. She was also in the paper about not wearing a mask because of ptsd.

Smells grifty.

The Telegraph and the Record still have the story up.

Brodies Trust is definitely not registered with OSCR.That in itself could warrant a visit from the polis 😏

The sad thing is that, like a lot of stuff, this just detracts from the actual debate.

[500miles]

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

The Telegraph and the Record still have the story up.

Brodies Trust is definitely not registered with OSCR.That in itself could warrant a visit from the polis 😏

The sad thing is that, like a lot of stuff, this just detracts from the actual debate.

There is a tonne of grifting around this subject. From trans teens inventing sob stories with gofundme's which disappear as quickly as they appear, to right wingers pretending to cate about women's rights and every social and political point in between.

I've not come across such a divisive issue where awful people are spread so evenly. I'd expected them to exclusively coalesce around recycled homophobia as usual, but apparently not.

[superfurryhibby]

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

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corrections-and-clarifications-5phnn0xh2

Our article “Police interview charity chief after tweet ending referrals to rape centre” (Jan 29) and subsequent articles reported that Police Scotland interviewed Nicola Murray, the head of the Brodie’s Trust domestic abuse support group, about a reported hate crime. The police have now confirmed she was not the subject of a complaint or investigation.

I'm quoting your post because I can't access the link as posted. Usually when it's quoted it becomes accessible for me.

Bordie's Trust may well be a not for profit organisation and they don't have to be a registered charity to operate as such (although they miss out on benefits associate with being one). I looked at the OSCR and also at their Facebook page and it does say "charitable organisation" on it. They don't appear to have a website. Perhaps they should change the wording to not for profit?

They say this..."We are a small unregistered charity and operate as a support group for women who have lost babies through domestic violence or forced termination. We do one to one and group support as appropriate, we offer advocacy, help with housing and benefits applications, support through the court process or reporting to the police if they choose to do so. Also practical help such as emergency groceries, power card top up, and essentials packs for new tenancy (pots & pans, utensils, plates, cutlery, bedding etc) where a service user has qualified for a community grant. It’s all very well getting a bed but you can’t sleep in it without bedding- or cook your tea without a pot.
We are not currently accepting donations but will be doing a new just giving appeal probably next month.
The best way to support our work at the moment is to like the page, share it, get the word out that we are here for the women who need us.
Our petition to the Scottish Parliament is currently under consideration with the committee having written to various organisations for their views ahead of the next stage- we are fairly optimistic that they will progress with it. Fingers crossed.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I'm quoting your post because I can't access the link as posted. Usually when it's quoted it becomes accessible for me.

Bordie's Trust may well be a not for profit organisation and they don't have to be a registered charity to operate as such (although they miss out on benefits associate with being one). I looked at the OSCR and also at their Facebook page and it does say "charitable organisation" on it. They don't appear to have a website. Perhaps they should change the wording to not for profit?

They say this..."We are a small unregistered charity and operate as a support group for women who have lost babies through domestic violence or forced termination. We do one to one and group support as appropriate, we offer advocacy, help with housing and benefits applications, support through the court process or reporting to the police if they choose to do so. Also practical help such as emergency groceries, power card top up, and essentials packs for new tenancy (pots & pans, utensils, plates, cutlery, bedding etc) where a service user has qualified for a community grant. It’s all very well getting a bed but you can’t sleep in it without bedding- or cook your tea without a pot.
We are not currently accepting donations but will be doing a new just giving appeal probably next month.
The best way to support our work at the moment is to like the page, share it, get the word out that we are here for the women who need us.
Our petition to the Scottish Parliament is currently under consideration with the committee having written to various organisations for their views ahead of the next stage- we are fairly optimistic that they will progress with it. Fingers crossed.

They need to get themselves proper advice.

They can't call themselves an "unregistered charity". There is no such thing.

If they want to do the valuable work they do, they should get themselves registered. Otherwise, they'll struggle to attract funding and may find themselves in bother with OSCR.

[Mr Grieves]

EHRC facing a legal challenge for being excessively influenced by the UK government. It looks like their stance on GRA changed when Liz Truss made "politically motivated" appointments to the EHRC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60331962

[CropleyWasGod]

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

EHRC facing a legal challenge for being excessively influenced by the UK government. It looks like their stance on GRA changed when Liz Truss made "politically motivated" appointments to the EHRC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60331962

Vice has been running a couple of stories recently about the politicisation of the EHRC. Whether these are part of a smear campaign remains to be seen, but if they have any substance, it does undermine a lot of their good work.

[James310]

https://twitter.com/mbmpolicy/status...YQvIhENnA&s=19

[hibsbollah]

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

EHRC facing a legal challenge for being excessively influenced by the UK government. It looks like their stance on GRA changed when Liz Truss made "politically motivated" appointments to the EHRC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60331962

The EHRC (see Labour anti semitism inquiry) is now a Tory Government front organisation, presumably done so because for years the right have been complaining that human rights and race relations have been a front for leftists. I think we’re at the point now where the civil service is so infested with appointees that the previous and genuine ‘public good’ culture that existed in the UK civil service is being badly eroded.

[500miles]

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

EHRC facing a legal challenge for being excessively influenced by the UK government. It looks like their stance on GRA changed when Liz Truss made "politically motivated" appointments to the EHRC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60331962

A lot of people angry about this who scoffed at the idea the EHRC would ever be politically influenced when it came to the Labour antisemitism investigation.

Like most of my complaints on the topic, I'm just wanting consistency from people on the issues surrounding it.

[He's here!]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...ance-cjp3lz5mz

[WhileTheChief..]

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

I just find it unbelievable that the (admittedly reluctant Polis) can find time to indulge this pish.

Not related, but I think similar about the whole parties in Downing St nonsense.

Wanting the police involved, to hand out £20 fines or whatever to Boris and co is a total waste of time and money.

We've turned into a nation of grasses though. We're all meant to run and tell tales as quickly as possible these days.

Even better if you can post on Twitter to demonstrate how much of a good citizen you are.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Not related, but I think similar about the whole parties in Downing St nonsense.

Wanting the police involved, to hand out £20 fines or whatever to Boris and co is a total waste of time and money.

We've turned into a nation of grasses though. We're all meant to run and tell tales as quickly as possible these days.

Even better if you can post on Twitter to demonstrate how much of a good citizen you are.

The story turned out to be false.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60420339


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[superfurryhibby]

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

The story turned out to be false.

The police confirmed she wasn't under investigation, but they still visited her?

The Police have been reported to the EHRC for their statement and inaccurate information giving associated with the statement they made linked to this matter.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/police-...-equality-law/
"
In a comment to the Times, Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie said “Hate crime and discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable”.

With regards to discrimination, this statement made on behalf of Police Scotland is inaccurate and misleading. The Equality Act 2010 sets out that discrimination can be lawful when that discrimination is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The statement made by Police Scotland that “discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable” conveys the meaning to the public that service providers who lawfully discriminate on the grounds of sex are themselves deplorable, and it suggests that use of the single-sex exceptions is in some way unlawful.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/police-...-equality-law/


Police misrepresenting the law in this way is a serious matter. The idea that service providers are in any way deplorable and acting unlawfully is likely to foster bad relations between potential service users who are included and those who are excluded, as well as fostering bad relations with the service provider itself. It is also reasonable to expect this police statement would have a ‘chilling effect’ on other service providers who wish to lawfully provide female-only services. Thus, fettering the ability of service providers to choose the most appropriate, and least discriminatory, service to their target service users.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

The police confirmed she wasn't under investigation, but they still visited her?

The Police have been reported to the EHRC for their statement and inaccurate information giving associated with the statement they made linked to this matter.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/police-...-equality-law/
"
In a comment to the Times, Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie said “Hate crime and discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable”.

With regards to discrimination, this statement made on behalf of Police Scotland is inaccurate and misleading. The Equality Act 2010 sets out that discrimination can be lawful when that discrimination is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The statement made by Police Scotland that “discrimination of any kind is deplorable and entirely unacceptable” conveys the meaning to the public that service providers who lawfully discriminate on the grounds of sex are themselves deplorable, and it suggests that use of the single-sex exceptions is in some way unlawful.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/police-...-equality-law/


Police misrepresenting the law in this way is a serious matter. The idea that service providers are in any way deplorable and acting unlawfully is likely to foster bad relations between potential service users who are included and those who are excluded, as well as fostering bad relations with the service provider itself. It is also reasonable to expect this police statement would have a ‘chilling effect’ on other service providers who wish to lawfully provide female-only services. Thus, fettering the ability of service providers to choose the most appropriate, and least discriminatory, service to their target service users.

That statement is dated 30th January. It refers to the Times article which was later withdrawn.

[superfurryhibby]

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

That statement is dated 30th January. It refers to the Times article which was later withdrawn.

Yes, but the withdrawal of the article doesn't mean the Police didn't visit her? They said she wasn't or hadn't been under investigation, which is what she also said they told her.

Either way, the Police statement is fundamentally wrong and worryingly misinformed.

[He's here!]

Scottish govt loses court battle over legal definition of women:

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,s...ition-of-women

[James310]

The GRA bill is coming to the Parliament this week.


by Mandy Rhodes
27 February 2022
@HolyroodMandy

Editor's Column: The Right to Be

It’s been a confusing time for sex. And that’s not me oversharing. But with the definitions of ‘sex’, ‘gender’ and indeed that of ‘woman’ itself now being battled out in court, we have only just traversed the outer edges of a toxic, but so far fringe, debate.

And as it has set us on a course for an argument fallaciously framed as being either pro- or anti-trans, we are about to see it get even more febrile as it breaks into the mainstream, with the Scottish Government making the case for the reform of the Gender Recognition Act.

For some of us, there has been a long and painful rehearsal to get to this point. Four years of deep introspection, emotional turmoil and complex argument that has already torn natural allies apart.

A time when invisible walls between longstanding contacts have been erected. When well-established relationships have become fractured. When reputations have been trashed, and livelihoods threatened.

When damaging and vexatious complaints have been made. When some of the most powerful legislators in the land have spoken behind closed doors but publicly failed to stand up for what they believed in or to defend those they should have stood squarely behind. A time of being ghosted by previously close contacts. And a time when you could start to feel a chill.

A dark, regressive time when arguments about whether biology even mattered or that a feeling of ‘just being’ should take precedence over a material reality.

A time when dependable champions for equality, who would normally argue from a platform of intellect and sense, turned into myopic bullies who shut down legitimate argument with a stinging rebuke of ‘transphobe’, and refused to engage in a challenge.

A time of deep contradictions. A time when, as a society, we woke up to the hellish lived experience of women and girls and their exhausting daily battle to keep safe from men. But at the same time, argued for the lifting of what meagre sex-based safeguards already existed.


A time when we were forced to question the very existence of biology, encouraged to use gender neutral terms around uniquely female specific practices like breast feeding, mothering and menstruation. And yet we ignored the disconnect of that argument when condemning practices like female genital mutilation, sex trafficking and forced marriage, where being female was the only determining factor for the victims.

A time when the UK’s statutory regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, could be branded a ‘hate group’ and reported to the United Nations on the basis of “revelations, if true” that it had prepared guidance that could prevent trans people from using single-sex spaces. Something which it categorically denied. But where the “if true” carried a lot of heavy lifting, even among Scottish Government ministers.

And when Police Scotland had to review a policy that would potentially allow male rapists to identify as women.

A time, to be frank, when fantasy has been indulged. Disinformation bandied around. Statistics manipulated and mangled. Truth stretched. And when crass comparisons have been made by high-profile politicians between people who are ‘intersex’, which they, incidentally, failed to properly define, with people who have red hair, to simply make a crass point about percentages and the right of ‘ginger people’ to exist.

This is no time for cheap laughs.

A time when, bizarrely, even some trans people find themselves labelled transphobic for refusing to bow down to a gender ideology that says you can actually physically change your sex, when you can’t.

And a time when concerns expressed by women were extraordinarily dismissed as ‘not valid’ by the First Minister. And their cries of protest were pronounced as evidence of radicalisation and ignorance.

We are still to be told how expanding the pool of people that can legally declare themselves to be women, which is what the government will propose by removing any medical gatekeeping to a Gender Recognition Certificate, cannot impinge on the rights currently held by the women they were designed for under the UK Equality Act. But that will be for the First Minister to explain.

Arguably, there has never been a more divisive piece of legislation put before the Scottish Parliament. The rows over Section 28 (2a in Scotland) and the debates around equal marriage just do not compare.

And the narrative that says they are the same is a false one. An Aunt Sally constructed to silence critics by dint of an association with what was once a torrid time.

But embracing the rights of a human being to love who they want, to marry who they want, and to have those same legal protections as anyone else, gay or straight, is a fundamental of equality. And ones which trans people already have.

Women in Scotland are seeing their rights eroded while at the same time being told that ‘trans lives are not up for debate’ when theirs already are.

I know no one that doesn’t agree that a process that allows someone to legally identify in the gender in which they wish to live their lives could be done with more respect, dignity and support. Indeed, polling shows that to be the case. So, the question that hangs is why, when there is broad consensus for reform, has self-ID, which does not get the same public support, become such a totemic issue for the Scottish Government?

It’s not even the most pressing of demands for trans people. Better health provision is.

And I get that the First Minister wants another first. She wants Scotland to be seen as a beacon of truly progressive policies. And if not the first in the world, then at least the first across these islands. But does she really want that to happen at the expense of women’s rights, of increased division, and of good law?

Call me cynical, but in the same way that the Scottish Parliament was found to have breached its legal powers by the Supreme Court at the end of last year, for attempting to incorporate into Scots law the statutes within the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the First Minister, as she did then around children’s rights, could always then blame Westminster for not allowing her to advance the cause of equality for trans people. It’s a thought

[He's here!]

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

The GRA bill is coming to the Parliament this week.


by Mandy Rhodes
27 February 2022
@HolyroodMandy

Editor's Column: The Right to Be

It’s been a confusing time for sex. And that’s not me oversharing. But with the definitions of ‘sex’, ‘gender’ and indeed that of ‘woman’ itself now being battled out in court, we have only just traversed the outer edges of a toxic, but so far fringe, debate.

And as it has set us on a course for an argument fallaciously framed as being either pro- or anti-trans, we are about to see it get even more febrile as it breaks into the mainstream, with the Scottish Government making the case for the reform of the Gender Recognition Act.

For some of us, there has been a long and painful rehearsal to get to this point. Four years of deep introspection, emotional turmoil and complex argument that has already torn natural allies apart.

A time when invisible walls between longstanding contacts have been erected. When well-established relationships have become fractured. When reputations have been trashed, and livelihoods threatened.

When damaging and vexatious complaints have been made. When some of the most powerful legislators in the land have spoken behind closed doors but publicly failed to stand up for what they believed in or to defend those they should have stood squarely behind. A time of being ghosted by previously close contacts. And a time when you could start to feel a chill.

A dark, regressive time when arguments about whether biology even mattered or that a feeling of ‘just being’ should take precedence over a material reality.

A time when dependable champions for equality, who would normally argue from a platform of intellect and sense, turned into myopic bullies who shut down legitimate argument with a stinging rebuke of ‘transphobe’, and refused to engage in a challenge.

A time of deep contradictions. A time when, as a society, we woke up to the hellish lived experience of women and girls and their exhausting daily battle to keep safe from men. But at the same time, argued for the lifting of what meagre sex-based safeguards already existed.


A time when we were forced to question the very existence of biology, encouraged to use gender neutral terms around uniquely female specific practices like breast feeding, mothering and menstruation. And yet we ignored the disconnect of that argument when condemning practices like female genital mutilation, sex trafficking and forced marriage, where being female was the only determining factor for the victims.

A time when the UK’s statutory regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, could be branded a ‘hate group’ and reported to the United Nations on the basis of “revelations, if true” that it had prepared guidance that could prevent trans people from using single-sex spaces. Something which it categorically denied. But where the “if true” carried a lot of heavy lifting, even among Scottish Government ministers.

And when Police Scotland had to review a policy that would potentially allow male rapists to identify as women.

A time, to be frank, when fantasy has been indulged. Disinformation bandied around. Statistics manipulated and mangled. Truth stretched. And when crass comparisons have been made by high-profile politicians between people who are ‘intersex’, which they, incidentally, failed to properly define, with people who have red hair, to simply make a crass point about percentages and the right of ‘ginger people’ to exist.

This is no time for cheap laughs.

A time when, bizarrely, even some trans people find themselves labelled transphobic for refusing to bow down to a gender ideology that says you can actually physically change your sex, when you can’t.

And a time when concerns expressed by women were extraordinarily dismissed as ‘not valid’ by the First Minister. And their cries of protest were pronounced as evidence of radicalisation and ignorance.

We are still to be told how expanding the pool of people that can legally declare themselves to be women, which is what the government will propose by removing any medical gatekeeping to a Gender Recognition Certificate, cannot impinge on the rights currently held by the women they were designed for under the UK Equality Act. But that will be for the First Minister to explain.

Arguably, there has never been a more divisive piece of legislation put before the Scottish Parliament. The rows over Section 28 (2a in Scotland) and the debates around equal marriage just do not compare.

And the narrative that says they are the same is a false one. An Aunt Sally constructed to silence critics by dint of an association with what was once a torrid time.

But embracing the rights of a human being to love who they want, to marry who they want, and to have those same legal protections as anyone else, gay or straight, is a fundamental of equality. And ones which trans people already have.

Women in Scotland are seeing their rights eroded while at the same time being told that ‘trans lives are not up for debate’ when theirs already are.

I know no one that doesn’t agree that a process that allows someone to legally identify in the gender in which they wish to live their lives could be done with more respect, dignity and support. Indeed, polling shows that to be the case. So, the question that hangs is why, when there is broad consensus for reform, has self-ID, which does not get the same public support, become such a totemic issue for the Scottish Government?

It’s not even the most pressing of demands for trans people. Better health provision is.

And I get that the First Minister wants another first. She wants Scotland to be seen as a beacon of truly progressive policies. And if not the first in the world, then at least the first across these islands. But does she really want that to happen at the expense of women’s rights, of increased division, and of good law?

Call me cynical, but in the same way that the Scottish Parliament was found to have breached its legal powers by the Supreme Court at the end of last year, for attempting to incorporate into Scots law the statutes within the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the First Minister, as she did then around children’s rights, could always then blame Westminster for not allowing her to advance the cause of equality for trans people. It’s a thought

That's a well written piece.

[superfurryhibby]

A time of deep contradictions. A time when, as a society, we woke up to the hellish lived experience of women and girls and their exhausting daily battle to keep safe from men. But at the same time, argued for the lifting of what meagre sex-based safeguards already existed.

The article (posted above) is well presented, but it seems to me it falls into a very divisive trap of labelling and generalising when it comes to women and their daily lived experience with men.

Speaking personally, woman and girls have no need to fight a daily battle to keep safe from me. Stereotyping all men is just as dangerous a road to go down as the predatory misogyny that the author is referring to.

[matty_f]

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

A time of deep contradictions. A time when, as a society, we woke up to the hellish lived experience of women and girls and their exhausting daily battle to keep safe from men. But at the same time, argued for the lifting of what meagre sex-based safeguards already existed.

The article (posted above) is well presented, but it seems to me it falls into a very divisive trap of labelling and generalising when it comes to women and their daily lived experience with men.

Speaking personally, woman and girls have no need to fight a daily battle to keep safe from me. Stereotyping all men is just as dangerous a road to go down as the predatory misogyny that the author is referring to.

It’s really not and while you’re right that it’s not literally every man, it is potentially any man so from a woman’s perspective, unless she knows you, then unfortunately you and I need to live with being tarred with that brush until all men sort themselves out.

I have two daughters and two sisters, as well as a wife. Their lives experiences are littered with predatory and unpleasant experiences of men, and that’s everything from being ignored at a garage or a DIY shop (amongst others), to having daily instances of men - strangers - making comments, wolf-whistling from cars or vans, being followed, being pestered on the bus or train, the list is almost endless.

It’s a million miles away from being anywhere near as dangerous as the oratory misogyny the author refers to.