The Trans Rights Debate

[He's here!]

Good piece from Johann Lamont on the dangers inherent in this bill. Would that more of the current Labour MSPs weren't so timid:



MSPs must not vote for a gender reform Bill they do not really support

We are being invited to believe that sexual predators have never thought to lie before and the safeguards proposed are risible

While the Court of Session ruling was disappointing, it made one thing crystal clear.
The Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which MSPs will vote on next week, poses a huge threat to single-sex spaces and would create a powerful new weapon which predatory men could exploit to harm women and girls.
For years SNP ministers have repeatedly, and shamefully, sought to dodge questions over whether Gender Recognition Certificates – to be handed out without hindrance if Nicola Sturgeon gets her way – change a person’s legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.
But Lady Haldane confirmed without any doubt that in the eyes of the law, a biological male with a GRC becomes legally female and gains significant new rights.
While we may not like that verdict, we should be grateful that we finally have legal certainty before MSPs vote on what I believe to be one of the most dangerous and misguided Bills in Holyrood’s history.
The so-called “safeguards” being proposed are utterly risible.

Ministers claim signing a declaration stating that you identify as the opposite sex is a solemn step, with a fraudulent application punishable by up to two years in jail.

But this could not conceivably work.
If gender identity is based solely on how a person feels, how could a court possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a declaration had been made in bad faith?
We are being invited to believe that sexual predators have never thought to lie before.
But the lesson of my life is that male abusers will do the most extraordinary things to access vulnerable women and children. Even Ms Sturgeon accepts abusers may take advantage of this system.
So it is utterly sickening that vulnerable women and children are still to be viewed as collateral damage, sacrificed at the altar of gender ideology.
If a convicted rapist, post-conviction, can transition and get placed in a female jail, then all bets are off over how you protect women. And you certainly reveal no understanding of or empathy with traumatised women.
I often wonder how we got here. For most of the 21 years that I sat in parliament, these issues seemed uncontroversial.
I thought the mantra "a trans woman is a woman" was about being kind. Of course, men who wished to live their lives as women were to be treated with dignity and respect.
Then, without anyone really noticing, the narrative changed. Trans women were literally women. Men had become the opposite sex.
We never in our wildest moments considered that "being kind" would lead to male-bodied people in sports such as cycling and swimming competing against women and girls.
But the problem was that once you accept that literally "trans women are women", you've conceded the logic of all these other arguments.
It was only by chance that I became interested in the details of the Forensic Medical Services Bill, which was passed in my final months as an MSP.
The committee that examined the legislation had called for it to be amended so that a victim of sexual offences could request to be examined by a woman, to be defined in legislation by their sex, not gender.
The Scottish Government tried its best to pretend this recommendation didn't exist.
But I won an argument within my own party, tabling an amendment in line with the committee's recommendation.
I know Ms Sturgeon did not want to support it. But it led to a debate within the SNP group and to their credit, their MSPs made it clear they would not be whipped into supporting something they did not believe in.
In the end my amendment was passed overwhelmingly with SNP support.
I believe the same thing may be happening now, albeit on a larger scale, and that the same tipping point is being reached.
SNP MSPs, as well as many in the Labour Party, have real concerns over the self-identification system. I firmly believe that there is not a majority for it across the Parliament.
SNP rebels have been emboldened rather than cowed. Ash Regan, who bravely quit her ministerial post to vote against the legislation at stage one, has emerged with her political reputation greatly enhanced.
Within my own party, I do not believe there is majority support for the proposals among the membership nor the Holyrood group.
A principled Labour politician would look at this travesty of a Bill and refuse to vote for it on substance.
A cynical one would look at it and say: "Why are we giving Nicola Sturgeon cover and a way out of a huge political mess?"
Either way, you get to the same place.
Some people have presented the passage of this Bill as a foregone conclusion. I think there is still hope that our lawmakers will pause and reflect.
People like Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on women and girls, are raising grave concerns.
Supporters of self-ID can attempt to traduce old feminists like me or experts like Ms Alsalem as Right-wing bigots or being too stupid to realise we’re being used. But it’s not really credible, is it?
Parliamentarians have an obligation to ask themselves, will this legislation make life more or less safe for vulnerable women and children? Does it empower or disempower male predators?
These are serious questions to which the Scottish Government has given joke answers. And until we get answers that put the safety of women and girls first, MSPs should not be voting for this.
There’s also a question that I’ve been asking myself recently.
Can we be still confident that the people with the power to make the law will not vote for something that, in their hearts, they don't believe in, and risks making the most vulnerable in our society less safe?
In my more optimistic moments, I believe that we can be.

[ronaldo7]

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

So that’s a no then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At least we've had a consultation here before any introduction. Imagine we hadn't.

[archie]

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

Uproar, really?

The petition to remove her from limericks prison got to 1817 signatures.

And that's the only indicator?

[Stairway 2 7]

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

So that’s a no then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your definition is full rape problem, women being unhappy with a decision no problem. Men should make more decisions for women, we know best

[ronaldo7]

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

And that's the only indicator?

I just don't think it caused 'uproar'

How many people need to discuss it to cause uproar? A few journalists, or many a couple of interested groups.

[Ozyhibby]

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

Your definition is full rape problem, women being unhappy with a decision no problem. Men should make more decisions for women, we know best

I didn’t ask if there were people unhappy about it. I can find them. And if you get the right papers on board you can even create more people who will be outraged.
I asked if there was evidence of problems with changing areas in Ireland since it’s introduction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

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

I didn’t ask if there were people unhappy about it. I can find them. And if you get the right papers on board you can even create more people who will be outraged.
I asked if there was evidence of problems with changing areas in Ireland since it’s introduction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But your problem is a full on rape. You think it's a win saying see no rape

Your dismissing women's feelings and opinions. Have they got the right to say they don't want male genitals in their changing rooms, or people with male genitals in rape crisis centres, or people with disabilities being washed by people with male genitalia

You just bash on saying see no rape in Ireland so all of the above is mute, women listen eh

[Ozyhibby]

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

But your problem is a full on rape. You think it's a win saying see no rape

Your dismissing women's feelings and opinions. Have they got the right to say they don't want male genitals in their changing rooms, or people with male genitals in rape crisis centres, or people with disabilities being washed by people with male genitalia

You just bash on saying see no rape in Ireland so all of the above is mute, women listen eh

Where did I mention rape?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

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

Where did I mention rape?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well that is the only quantifiable thing you will get from Ireland. What else are you looking for its utterly ridiculous.

[archie]

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

I didn’t ask if there were people unhappy about it. I can find them. And if you get the right papers on board you can even create more people who will be outraged.
I asked if there was evidence of problems with changing areas in Ireland since it’s introduction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's the isue with what you are looking for. You want hard quantifiable evidence of people's behviours. This is really difficult to establish, but it is there. An example of this is around the energy crisis. By your approach the only indicator of distress would be disconections or maybe pre pay meters being installed. But behind that there is a whole group of people who don't turn on heating, retreat to one room, shower less and so on and so on. These behavioural changes are really difficult to capture over a short period and without detailed research. Similarly, I suspect women will just change behaviour; not go to the gym; avoid shops with certain changing room rules and so on. Is that really a victory?

I could cite the Primark protests here, triggered by this: https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2022...lk-in-on-woman Primark did change their policy. Was this woman a racist or did she have unevidenced fears?

[He's here!]

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

That’s is complete nonsense. I couldn’t say for sure but I’m sure opposition to the poll tax was higher than 60%? Also, people cared about the poll tax. Most people in Scotland only have minimal awareness this is even happening. And the percentage of people directly affected by it is tiny. To compare it with the poll tax is a joke and make Rowling look foolish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is one of the major concerns around this legislation - that many won't understand its implications until it becomes law, something Rowling is right to make headlines about.

I'm unclear why you think the percentage of people affected by this legislation will be tiny. The topic may appear niche, but last week's Court of Session judicial review and the forthcoming legislation will affect us all. We're about to see the word 'sex' in Scotland lose its meaning and GRC certificates handed out with no diagnosis, checks or safeguards of any kind. Self identification is all that is required. Sturgeon's claim that her new gender laws do not grant anyone significant new rights simply does not hold water and I find it inconceivable that she's oblivious to the coach and horses she is riding through hard-fought women's rights.

As Sonia Sodha pointed out in the Guardian last week: "Sturgeon has ignored female victims of male violence, treated the concerns of the UN special rapporteur dismissively and failed to listen to young people who received appalling care from NHS Scotland and now regret their transition. Her implausible mantra remains that no man will abuse the system, women’s rights are not affected and evidence reviewed by an English paediatrician has no relevance to Scottish children. The most likely outcome is that Sturgeon, a self-professed feminist and nationalist, will leave the door wide open for a Conservative government in Westminster to step in to protect Scottish women, by updating the Equality Act to clarify its sex-based protections for women apply only to those who are biologically female."

Her final sentence may prove very close to the mark - and who knows, perhaps that what Sturgeon has wanted all along.

[Stairway 2 7]

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

Here's the isue with what you are looking for. You want hard quantifiable evidence of people's behviours. This is really difficult to establish, but it is there. An example of this is around the energy crisis. By your approach the only indicator of distress would be disconections or maybe pre pay meters being installed. But behind that there is a whole group of people who don't turn on heating, retreat to one room, shower less and so on and so on. These behavioural changes are really difficult to capture over a short period and without detailed research. Similarly, I suspect women will just change behaviour; not go to the gym; avoid shops with certain changing room rules and so on. Is that really a victory?

I could cite the Primark protests here, triggered by this: https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2022...lk-in-on-woman Primark did change their policy. Was this woman a racist or did she have unevidenced fears?

Further back I put up a article from a paralysed woman who was petrified at the thought trans women would be able to give her intimate care. Not quantifiable, so not a problem I guess..

[He's here!]

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

Further back I put up a article from a paralysed woman who was petrified at the thought trans women would be able to give her intimate care. Not quantifiable, so not a problem I guess..

Good point.

[Ozyhibby]

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

Further back I put up a article from a paralysed woman who was petrified at the thought trans women would be able to give her intimate care. Not quantifiable, so not a problem I guess..

Another hypothetical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

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

Another hypothetical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She's literally a real person, who is terrified because the rule change will mean she won't be able to refuse as it will be a woman doing it. Just because it doesn't effect you, you don't care if women aren't happy or there wishes are listened to.

[James310]

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

Another hypothetical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You as a man are basically telling a disabled woman her fears are not valid and she just needs to get on with it?

[LewysGot2]

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

You as a man are basically telling a disabled woman her fears are not valid and she just needs to get on with it?

For the virtue signalling purist it is political. "Progressive" is the new camouflage vehicle for political intolerance.

For some males it's misogyny, sadly.

For many males it is naively not realising it is simply their privilege that makes them think its not a problem. Maybe they don't have daughters or sisters or wives...but they all have mothers. Even if it was hypothetical that someone might abuse a disabled women or elderly it's the anxiety and vulnerability that is being dismissed. The vulnerable person's voice being dismissed.

My mum was in a care home. She needed full personal care. Had she got that from anyone other than a person of the same biological sex she would have refused personal care. Her dignity and comfort isnt hypothetical. If women feel safer with other women who are we to dismiss that?

[James310]

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

For the virtue signalling purist it is political. "Progressive" is the new camouflage vehicle for political intolerance.

For some males it's misogyny, sadly.

For many males it is naively not realising it is simply their privilege that makes them think its not a problem. Maybe they don't have daughters or sisters or wives...but they all have mothers. Even if it was hypothetical that someone might abuse a disabled women or elderly it's the anxiety and vulnerability that is being dismissed. The vulnerable person's voice being dismissed.

My mum was in a care home. She needed full personal care. Had she got that from anyone other than a person of the same biological sex she would have refused personal care. Her dignity and comfort isnt hypothetical. If women feel safer with other women who are we to dismiss that?

Men telling woman that their fears and anxiety are not valid because the situation that you are anxious about hasn't happened is an argument that makes no sense. Have a look at the mental health thread on here, quite a few people suffer from anxiety and imagine telling them to basically get on with it and their fears are not valid because the thing they are anxious about is hypothetical and hasn't actually happened.

[neil7908]

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

For the virtue signalling purist it is political. "Progressive" is the new camouflage vehicle for political intolerance.

For some males it's misogyny, sadly.

For many males it is naively not realising it is simply their privilege that makes them think its not a problem. Maybe they don't have daughters or sisters or wives...but they all have mothers. Even if it was hypothetical that someone might abuse a disabled women or elderly it's the anxiety and vulnerability that is being dismissed. The vulnerable person's voice being dismissed.

My mum was in a care home. She needed full personal care. Had she got that from anyone other than a person of the same biological sex she would have refused personal care. Her dignity and comfort isnt hypothetical. If women feel safer with other women who are we to dismiss that?

There has been a bit of decent debate on here from both sides but as soon as I read "virtue signalling purist" I immediately stopped reading.

[He's here!]

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

For the virtue signalling purist it is political. "Progressive" is the new camouflage vehicle for political intolerance.

For some males it's misogyny, sadly.

For many males it is naively not realising it is simply their privilege that makes them think its not a problem. Maybe they don't have daughters or sisters or wives...but they all have mothers. Even if it was hypothetical that someone might abuse a disabled women or elderly it's the anxiety and vulnerability that is being dismissed. The vulnerable person's voice being dismissed.

My mum was in a care home. She needed full personal care. Had she got that from anyone other than a person of the same biological sex she would have refused personal care. Her dignity and comfort isnt hypothetical. If women feel safer with other women who are we to dismiss that?

Indeed. Working across various primary schools, I am very much in a minority as a male and whenever this legislation is raised in staff rooms there's a consensus that it's hard for men to fully appreciate just how valued protected spaces for women are. On the flip side I'm not aware of any regular female posters on this particular forum and it's interesting to see numerous posts along the lines of 'what's the worst that can happen?'.

[He's here!]

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

There has been a bit of decent debate on here from both sides but as soon as I read "virtue signalling purist" I immediately stopped reading.

If you read beyond that you'll find he makes a good point.

[He's here!]

Lord McConnell calls for a pause to the legislation and a cross-party summit to address concerns.

Gender law could lure sex offenders to Scotland, claims former First Minister - Daily Record

I know that neither he nor Johann Lamont are MSPs, but in light of the strength of their opposition to the legislation I imagine Labour are torn on the issue.

[Ozyhibby]

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

Lord McConnell calls for a pause to the legislation and a cross-party summit to address concerns.

Gender law could lure sex offenders to Scotland, claims former First Minister - Daily Record

I know that neither he nor Johann Lamont are MSPs, but in light of the strength of their opposition to the legislation I imagine Labour are torn on the issue.

Doesn’t the legislation have cross party support? Why would it then need a pause for a cross party summit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LewysGot2]

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

If you read beyond that you'll find he makes a good point.

It was deliberate. The order and range of reasons for people responding the way they do. Unfortunately, some people don't want to listen to another viewpoint- these people DO exist. They are not the majority. But those who prevented women meeting to discuss their thoughts on issues connected to this debate were stifling debate.

If people don't read beyond that first discussion point then I'm not offended but I'm also not surprised.

[marinello59]

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

Doesn’t the legislation have cross party support? Why would it then need a pause for a cross party summit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve mainly avoided this one because i genuinely find some of it confusing and there’s a lot of it I don’t feel qualified to address as a male. So I make no comment about the issue itself.

We don’t have a second chamber in Scotland, maybe pausing for breath and letting a cross party summit serve that purpose would not be a bad thing. If it’s good legislation then it will still be passed.

[archie]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...P=share_btn_tw

[He's here!]

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

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...P=share_btn_tw

Well worth a read.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...onnell-3958190

Both sides of this debate can make good points and have genuine concerns. Then there is this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pretty Boy]

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

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...P=share_btn_tw

An interesting read.

It's a far more eloquent extension of my views on the subject. The debate has become so polarised and so dominated by sloganeering that the sensible compromises put forward in the editorial have become unpalatable to the extremes on both sides.

A pause for thought, further debate and additional independent advice would be the sensible move in Scotland right now. It's become such a toxic issue though, even if only among a minority, that there seems an insatiable desire just to get it done.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://news.stv.tv/politics/women-w...-kezia-dugdale