The Trans Rights Debate

[Pretty Boy]

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

Of course that works both ways. Even on this thread we see support for the bill characterised as favouring rapists and sex offenders over women.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure that's the case.

There are huge chunks of the bill I find myself broadly supportive of but the failure to put safeguards in place around sexual offences is hugely problematic and the legitimate concerns of a number of women can't just be dismissed. That's not suggesting those who feel differently favour rapists but the bill potentially does, inadvertently of course.

It's an issue that will impact such a minority that it really should be a no brainer to put the safeguard in place. It's something that won't ever impact on and thus discriminate against almost the entirety of the trans population. The point remains though that under the current bill a rapist could potentially legally change their gender and as such be tried as a woman. Female rape is such a grey area legally in Scotland that there is potential they could then be subject to a lesser charge. That's wrong by any measure. Of course it would be challenged but the judiciary don't write the law, only interpret it. If the bill passes as is then their hands could well be tied. I daresay a counter challenge would argue trying someone legally identified as a female as a male was discriminatory.

That's such a niche issue, such a hypothetical that it would be smart politics and a sensible compromise to put a legal safeguard in place to stop it ever occuring. The opportunity to do so was missed last night.

[heretoday]

The emphasis should be on changing men's behaviour towards women.
I'd very much doubt there will be any more cases of rapists invading female spaces as a result of the bill than there have ever been.

[Hibrandenburg]

I can't help but think we're at a "Dinosaur" moment in time and that future generations will look back and think WTF were they thinking, similar to how we now look back at 70's comedy. Problem is I've just not figured out who the dinosaurs are.

[Stairway 2 7]

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

The emphasis should be on changing men's behaviour towards women.
I'd very much doubt there will be any more cases of rapists invading female spaces as a result of the bill than there have ever been.

I think full blown rape is a cop out and overblown on both sides. I personally think that women's rights and wishes being eroded is a bigger scandal. Just because they won't get raped doesn't mean they shouldn't have the choice to have single sex situations.

Having a biological male in a female rape counselling group session won't show up in any statistic, it might not seem a big deal to many men but its huge for many women.

The dignity of an old lady or someone with a disability wanting a biological female giving them intimate care. That's also nothing for some but a big deal to many effected.

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-64058140

Vote delayed.

[He's here!]

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

I'm not sure that's the case.

There are huge chunks of the bill I find myself broadly supportive of but the failure to put safeguards in place around sexual offences is hugely problematic and the legitimate concerns of a number of women can't just be dismissed. That's not suggesting those who feel differently favour rapists but the bill potentially does, inadvertently of course.

It's an issue that will impact such a minority that it really should be a no brainer to put the safeguard in place. It's something that won't ever impact on and thus discriminate against almost the entirety of the trans population. The point remains though that under the current bill a rapist could potentially legally change their gender and as such be tried as a woman. Female rape is such a grey area legally in Scotland that there is potential they could then be subject to a lesser charge. That's wrong by any measure. Of course it would be challenged but the judiciary don't write the law, only interpret it. If the bill passes as is then their hands could well be tied. I daresay a counter challenge would argue trying someone legally identified as a female as a male was discriminatory.

That's such a niche issue, such a hypothetical that it would be smart politics and a sensible compromise to put a legal safeguard in place to stop it ever occuring. The opportunity to do so was missed last night.

I'm still finding it hard to comprehend why that amendment wasn't accepted. As Ash Regan asked earlier, do you think this legislation makes women more or less safe? The answer is obvious.

[He's here!]

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

Is success based on it popularity?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I'm asking is when or if it has been accepted that gender self-ID is 'international best practice'? The views of the electorate surely count for as much as those of their elected politicians and the apparent lack of consultation in Ireland and Denmark, coupled with the questionable range of the public consultation in Scotland makes me wonder what has brought us to this stormy pass.

[Pretty Boy]

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

I'm still finding it hard to comprehend why that amendment wasn't accepted. As Ash Regan asked earlier, do you think this legislation makes women more or less safe? The answer is obvious.

It just seems to me a slam dunk for both political compromise and common sense. It's so niche that it would impact less than a handful of people in a lifetime.

It's an extreme but should have been all the easier to find commonn ground on because of that. Something like intimate care provision is a far more complex debate and one that I'm far more conflicted on.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://news.stv.tv/politics/vote-on...ed-at-holyrood




The Scottish Government insists the legislation will not impact the Equality Act, which allows for trans people to be excluded from single-sex spaces such as changing rooms and shelters, something that was affirmed by an earlier amendment from Labour’s Pam Duncan-Glancy.

[He's here!]

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

https://news.stv.tv/politics/vote-on...ed-at-holyrood




The Scottish Government insists the legislation will not impact the Equality Act, which allows for trans people to be excluded from single-sex spaces such as changing rooms and shelters, something that was affirmed by an earlier amendment from Labour’s Pam Duncan-Glancy.

That can't be true. The Equality Act ensures legal provision for female only services, which exclude males, regardless of gender. Now that the Court of Session has ruled that a GRC changes both gender and sex for the purposes of the Equalities Act a man will now be able to access such services simply by stating they are a woman. The answer to the thorny question of what is a woman is about to become a lot easier to answer in Scotland because the answer will be anyone who says they are. Absurd.

[J-C]

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

1273 posts including this one and my first on this topic i think. Is it OK to see both sides and feel conflicted on almost every point raised by both sides? That's where I am. I understand both sides of the argument and I can see both sides cases.
I should also say that it is an incredibly complex matter and I feel that it is a shame that it has become so entrenched between different political groups. There's no doubt that there are some people completely using this for political gain, some personal and some party.

First and last post for me on this topic

Saves me posting, my thoughts exactly.

[Santa Cruz]

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

Saves me posting, my thoughts exactly.

Agree also. Would add, have learnt a lot on this subject through reading this thread.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

That can't be true. The Equality Act ensures legal provision for female only services, which exclude males, regardless of gender. Now that the Court of Session has ruled that a GRC changes both gender and sex for the purposes of the Equalities Act a man will now be able to access such services simply by stating they are a woman. The answer to the thorny question of what is a woman is about to become a lot easier to answer in Scotland because the answer will be anyone who says they are. Absurd.

The EA works both ways. It allows organisations to prevent access by anyone, if the owners or members of that space deem that appropriate.

Only last week, I was in what is normally a female-only space. The members allowed me in. Had they refused, I would have had no recourse, even if I'd had a GRC. The EA trumps that.

The reformed GRA doesn't change that. The challenge,however, was highlighted in the debate last night by a Labour MSP (can't remember their name). They asked that guidance be given to all affected organisations (such as Health Boards)to clarify how to apply both the EA and GRA. I don't think that's an unreasonable request,and IMO should be dealt with before the reformed GRA comes into force.

[archie]

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

The EA works both ways. It allows organisations to prevent access by anyone, if the owners or members of that space deem that appropriate.

Only last week, I was in what is normally a female-only space. The members allowed me in. Had they refused, I would have had no recourse, even if I'd had a GRC. The EA trumps that.

The reformed GRA doesn't change that.

I think that will need tested in court (and it will be).

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I think that will need tested in court (and it will be).

You got in before my edit 😀

[LewysGot2]

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

I think there's a lot in what you say. How to be radical and progressive without actually changing anything and with no consequence for proponents.

It's definitely first world political ongoings. No female banned from university again this week in Afghanistan is ever going to be debating with the Taliban about identity politics- it's a biological reality for them. The women in Iran can't identify out of their oppression. It's a biological reality.

A lot of the debate is from people who concede they are in a position of relative privilege who will never feel any impact from it. The people who will feel the sharp end of getting it wrong will be the most vulnerable. The old, the very young, those who are immobile or non verbal, the impoverished. That's why we need to get it right.

[archie]

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

You got in before my edit 😀

On it!

[He's here!]

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

She can't have long in the snp

Joanna Cherry KC
@joannaccherry
I am horrified by the voting down of amendments designed to prevent rapists & violent sex offenders from abusing Self-ID. I will speak at this rally later in support of rebel SNP MSP colleagues. For me this a matter of conscience

She speaks well here:

SNP's Joanna Cherry: Colleagues 'scared' to opppose gender reforms | Watch (msn.com)

Interesting to hear that introducing gender self-ID was not part of the SNP manifesto and has never been voted for at a party conference.

[He's here!]

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

I think full blown rape is a cop out and overblown on both sides. I personally think that women's rights and wishes being eroded is a bigger scandal. Just because they won't get raped doesn't mean they shouldn't have the choice to have single sex situations.

Having a biological male in a female rape counselling group session won't show up in any statistic, it might not seem a big deal to many men but its huge for many women.

The dignity of an old lady or someone with a disability wanting a biological female giving them intimate care. That's also nothing for some but a big deal to many effected.

Ash Regan sums up the fundamental flaws with the new legislation:

Fact Fem on Twitter: "Ash Regan (SNP): #GRRBill "introduces a hierarchy of rights, where women's rights are demoted. Self-ID does grant new rights, as it will grant a GRC to almost anyone. This is not just an admin change or change in process that has no real world effect." ���� https://t.co/ctglKspGew" / Twitter

[Mon Dieu4]

Don't want to come across as insensitive because I genuinely want everyone to be treated fairly and equally but this seems like a lot of hassle over something that under 500 people actually did in the last year or so, 2 days worth of debate in parliament and all the fighting when we are in the middle of economic meltdown

I know it's not insignificant for the people going through it and my heart goes out to them, but homelessness is more of an issue, where's the debates lasting days on that?

[He's here!]

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

I think that will need tested in court (and it will be).

You think so? I know Joanna Cherry hinted at that.

The BBC yesterday carried this breakdown of the possible legal challenges available:

Even if the bill becomes law that may not be the end of the matter, as the UK government has been making noises about challenging the legislation.

One potential avenue for doing so is the interaction between gender recognition certificates issued in Scotland and equalities law, which is reserved to Westminster.

Last week Scotland's Court of Session ruled in favour of the Scottish government over its intention to include trans people in the definition of women in terms of female representation on public sector boards.

Lady Haldane concluded that for the purposes of the 2010 Equalities Act the meaning of sex was "not limited to biological or birth sex."

For Women Scotland, which brought the case, says the ruling reveals that a gender recognition certificate effectively counts as a change of sex under the Equality Act. It says this could open up women-only spaces such as changing rooms and refuges to trans people, potentially putting women at risk.

Another potential challenge the UK government could mount would be to argue that recognising Scottish gender recognition certificates elsewhere in the UK could breach the Scotland Act 1998, which established devolution, if Holyrood were seen to be legislating beyond its borders.

Aileen McHarg, professor of public law and human rights at Durham University's Law School, said there was a third route which opponents of the bill might go down: a challenge under Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which codifies a right to respect for privacy.
But, said Prof McHarg, supporters of the bill could also mount a human rights challenge if there was a blanket refusal to recognise Scottish-issued gender recognition certificates elsewhere in the UK.

She told the BBC: "This is going to be very messy whatever happens."

[Ozyhibby]

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

Don't want to come across as insensitive because I genuinely want everyone to be treated fairly and equally but this seems like a lot of hassle over something that under 500 people actually did in the last year or so, 2 days worth of debate in parliament and all the fighting when we are in the middle of economic meltdown

I know it's not insignificant for the people going through it and my heart goes out to them, but homelessness is more of an issue, where's the debates lasting days on that?

I’ll be glad today once it’s all over. It will be forgotten about very quickly when 99.9999% of people realise that nothing has actually changed in their life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

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

Don't want to come across as insensitive because I genuinely want everyone to be treated fairly and equally but this seems like a lot of hassle over something that under 500 people actually did in the last year or so, 2 days worth of debate in parliament and all the fighting when we are in the middle of economic meltdown

I know it's not insignificant for the people going through it and my heart goes out to them, but homelessness is more of an issue, where's the debates lasting days on that?

That's not what the fight is about. As far as I'm aware nobody on here is anti-trans and it's certainly not been an issue during the debate at Holyrood.

It's the perceived erosion of women's rights/safety inherent in this legislation which has caused such a kickback against it, coupled with concerns about making it easier for children to change their legal gender.

[Mon Dieu4]

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

That's not what the fight is about. As far as I'm aware nobody on here is anti-trans and it's certainly not been an issue during the debate at Holyrood.

It's the perceived erosion of women's rights/safety inherent in this legislation which has caused such a kickback against it, coupled with concerns about making it easier for children to change their legal gender.

I'm stating that I don't think there is any need for this bill at all in the present moment, by all means address it down then line but it has an impact on such a small amount of people that there are what I think are more important issues like homelessness, drink and drugs issue etc that should be dealt with first as they have a greater impact on more people

[He's here!]

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

The EA works both ways. It allows organisations to prevent access by anyone, if the owners or members of that space deem that appropriate.

Only last week, I was in what is normally a female-only space. The members allowed me in. Had they refused, I would have had no recourse, even if I'd had a GRC. The EA trumps that.

The reformed GRA doesn't change that. The challenge,however, was highlighted in the debate last night by a Labour MSP (can't remember their name). They asked that guidance be given to all affected organisations (such as Health Boards)to clarify how to apply both the EA and GRA. I don't think that's an unreasonable request,and IMO should be dealt with before the reformed GRA comes into force.

How do you interpret the Court of Session ruling? Lady Haldane's conclusion that for the purpose of the Equalities Act the meaning of sex "is not limited to biological birth or sex" indicates to me (and clearly many others) that a GRC will now count as a change of sex. I've read through her ruling several times and I can't see how else to interpret it.

[He's here!]

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

I'm stating that I don't think there is any need for this bill at all in the present moment, by all means address it down then line but it has an impact on such a small amount of people that there are what I think are more important issues like homelessness, drink and drugs issue etc that should be dealt with first as they have a greater impact on more people

You'd need to ask Sturgeon why she thinks it's a priority.

Plenty would argue that it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut approach and that there's no need for the bill in its current controversial form at all - with adequate protection for trans people already provided under the Equality Act and current provisions compliant with human rights legislation.

[Stairway 2 7]

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

I’ll be glad today once it’s all over. It will be forgotten about very quickly when 99.9999% of people realise that nothing has actually changed in their life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For you sir.

[James310]

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

You'd need to ask Sturgeon why she thinks it's a priority.

Plenty would argue that it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut approach and that there's no need for the bill in its current controversial form at all - with adequate protection for trans people already provided under the Equality Act and current provisions compliant with human rights legislation.

Can't help but think it's a personal thing for Sturgeon as it's a "legacy" she can look back on. Let's face it she has little else to look back on as her legacy.

Imagine if we had all night debates on homelessness or education or drug deaths, but no let's have all night debates and emergency sessions on Trans rights.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

How do you interpret the Court of Session ruling? Lady Haldane's conclusion that for the purpose of the Equalities Act the meaning of sex "is not limited to biological birth or sex" indicates to me (and clearly many others) that a GRC will now count as a change of sex. I've read through her ruling several times and I can't see how else to interpret it.

...which is why, as Pauline McNeill said last night, guidance needs to be issued to clarify what public bodies and others should do to reconcile both.

I'm not sure how that question was dealt with last night, as I had to leave it. I'd be interested in what the response was.

Did anyone watch it?

[ronaldo7]

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

What I'm asking is when or if it has been accepted that gender self-ID is 'international best practice'? The views of the electorate surely count for as much as those of their elected politicians and the apparent lack of consultation in Ireland and Denmark, coupled with the questionable range of the public consultation in Scotland makes me wonder what has brought us to this stormy pass.

What was questionable in the consultation process.

We've been at this for 6 long years. How much longer should we take to pass legislation?