The Trans stuff - Page 4 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

The Trans stuff


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Rohan said:

I've obviously misread the title of the thread. I thought it was "the trains stuff" ready for a good moan about about scotrail. But fuck me, this is fucking skitter 

You should start a trains thread. Would be better than the pish on this one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rohan said:

I've obviously misread the title of the thread. I thought it was "the trains stuff" ready for a good moan about about scotrail. But fuck me, this is fucking skitter 

What do you think of train companies self id'ing as capitalist ventures whilst the public sector provides the infrastructure?

Edited by ThistleWhistle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2020 at 2:47 AM, Shaundy said:

Am trying really hard but the stand up jobbying freak is testing my         understanding. 
 

how . Even with core control and healthy stool expectancy there has to be a wide stride without squat . Then it beggers what is a standing stance. 
if we are considering the power stance of our masters as shown by many Tory types in recent years then I would argue that is not standing. Yeah I could drop a shite with legs that leg spread without it touching beyond arse. 
bonny 79 , am passing through your way for next game . Fancy a pint ? 

Stand up for your next one 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

I haven't really followed all this gender stuff. I'm not even sure it's even about gender? Can anybody give me a brief explanation as to what all the fuss is about. Not that I've seen much fuss either to be honest. The only place I've seen or heard anybody mention of it is on here and Wings. 

I've read all the Wings stuff about and I'm still not any the wiser. I'm not sure why he is so annoyed about what, to me, seems to be a very niche subject. As far as I can make out he is worried about a few "men" using ladies toilets. Is that really such a difficult problem to sort out?

Whit's awe the fuss aboot? 

 

I think I put this in the wrong thread so I moved it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

I think I put this in the wrong thread so I moved it here.

In summary.   The current process whereby someone changes gender and is granted a gender reassignment certificate is that they've gone lived as their acquired gender for a minimum of two years and have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria from - I think - two doctors.  There is no requirement to go through any surgery.

A lot of people - and apparently many in the trans community believe that process to be too onerous and specifically that having to get a diagnosis is both demeaning and discriminatory.

The proposal therefore is to introduce a system of self-ID which effectively means that someone can state that they are a different gender and subject to some conditions that is taken at face value.

That opens up the potential for some unintended consequences which are largely around biological males self-identifying as female having access to female only spaces, such as toilets, changing rooms, prisons, etc.    And then there is sport, where there's obvious physical advantages for people who have gone through male puberty competing in female events.

TBF, for most decent people on either side of the debate - and there are plenty who aren't decent - the issue isn't so much about a "genuine" trans-woman being a "threat" but it is that self-ID allows for predatory men to self-ID as female and gain access to those spaces and services, like getting a masseuse who does bikini waxes to wax their balls.    I'd like to think that there is some sympathy for the notion that for a genuine trans-person that process of reassignment and them living their lives should be a straight forward and as painless as possible.

The pro-GRA side completely downplay the likelihood of that happening, you don't have to be a Mili Tant," all men are rapists", style feminist to believe that *some* men will do that and that the current and proposed legislation doesn't go far enough to stop it.   Similarly, stating that some men will abuse it doesn't mean that you are suggesting that all trans people are degenerate child molesters and rapists.

On either side there are plenty of decent, well thinking people and a - fairly - large and vocal number of bigots and loop-the-loops with questionable agendas.  As always in these situations, for the zealots, if you don't agree, you're worse than a Nazi, regardless of how reasoned your arguments are.

Its a really difficult circle to square as I don't see how you can achieve the - IMHO, perfectly reasonable, objectives of the legislation and put the protections in place to stop abuse, because it will be abused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Orraloon said:

Thanks for that summary. Doesn't like something that should be too difficult to manage. 

If it was easy to manage, do you think there would be all this hoo-hah.

The issue is really all around equality and discrimination.   The most recent legislation around this is the 2010 Equality Act.  This defines a number of protected categories based on which it is illegal to discriminate on in a range of different areas, gender is one of those and trans is another.   

However fundamental problems occur where the rights of one protected category comes into conflict with the rights of another.

For example, its not possible to discriminate on gender, yet political parties are able to have all women shortlists.    These is a specific exemption in the act which allows this as it recognises the disparity in the number of female elected representatives and the need to proactively address that.

Until now, the rights of trans-women and women haven't really come into conflict because the current gender reassignment process has meant that there's been little to no abuse.   There have been documented cases of people changing gender and then regretting that however, I think in those cases there was a genuine belief at the time.   

However under Self-ID, there's nothing to stop  me saying "I'm a women" and anyone suing anyone who says "fuck off, you're a fat bald old man" and that's where the fundamental problem lies.

It's difficult to see how you can put legislation in place to counter abuse that doesn't nullify the intent of the act itself.



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aaid said:

 

However under Self-ID, there's nothing to stop  me saying "I'm a women" and anyone suing anyone who says "fuck off, you're a fat bald old man" and that's where the fundamental problem lies.





 

Is there currently any legislation going through parliament which would make that possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially my original issue was how it could be exploited by men taking advantage of the situation by just saying they're a woman.  Although the present process is more difficult and onerous on the applicant surely that is the whole point as it makes it less susceptible to abuse.  Although making it less onerous will reduce the stresses of the applicant it is opening up at least 50% of the population in comparison to benefiting <1% so how safeguarding is achieved is key to the whole thing.  There’s rapists and murderers who’ve used GRA to self-identify to gain access to women prisons and there was also someone who self id’d to work in a rape centre as more headline catching examples.  It also potentially  just opens up pervy blokes using it as a way to gain access to toilets, changing rooms, etc.  However, my main concern is around my daughter and genuinely the more I read the less I like. 

 

There was an example down south where someone self-id’d as a woman and was allowed to look after school kids overnight whilst parents were not allowed to be told – it took a member of staff to resign to flag it up.  Again the concern here is it is open for paedophile blokes to gain access.   

 

Another issue is currently the legal age is 18 whereas the consultation is looking at: reducing it to 16; allowing 12 years olds including parental consent; allowing 12 years to instruct a solicitor to act on their behalf and apply via court or; allow people under 16 to apply on recommendation of medical or solicitor grounds so someone who is deemed too young to deface their body externally with a tattoo could block their puberty with potentially parents being legally out of the loop.  This is where it gets darker with Ferring Pharmaceuticals heavily donating to the Lib Dems for example; Stonewall/ Mermaids accused of cult like behaviour along with using gender stereotypes to identity potential gender dysphoria; trans being pushed in primary school with the number of children being referred for gender dysphoria increasing from 10 a decade ago to 2500 (plus 3000 on waiting lists) and; numerous resignations at the main facility citing pressure to diagnose gender dysphoria with half of children seen going on puberty blockers.    

 

Personally I had no issue explaining why the girl next door had two mums to my five year old.  I don’t really see why a primary school child needs to be taught about potentially being the wrong sex when it doesn’t really matter until they hit puberty – my daughter wanted me to pretend she was a dog this weekend and I didn’t take her down the vet to get microchipped.  If a trans man or woman wanted to talk to a class of primary 7’s I don’t think I would have any great issue with that but I really don’t understand how or why drag queens fit into this at all – if a female teacher turned up dressed similarly it would be deemed highly inappropriate plus surely drag and trans are two separate things unless I’m missing something?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Is there currently any legislation going through parliament which would make that possible?

Yes - the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which is what the whole stooshie is all about.

You can read all about it here.  

https://www.gov.scot/publications/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-consultation-scottish-government/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, aaid said:

Yes - the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which is what the whole stooshie is all about.

You can read all about it here.  

https://www.gov.scot/publications/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill-consultation-scottish-government/

So they are going through another consultation? Sounds like more folk with views on this subject should be getting involved in this consultation. 

This can be easily managed by the SG if there is a will do to it. This could be prioritised any way the SG see fit. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Orraloon said:

So they are going through another consultation? Sounds like more folk with views on this subject should be getting involved in this consultation. 

This can be easily managed by the SG if there is a will do to it. This could be prioritised any way the SG see fit. 

 

That's why it's going through another consultation, there was a lot of suspicion that the original consultation was hijacked/railroaded by the pro-Self ID lobby and that it was being presented as a fait accompli.

FWIW, in its current form, it doesn't stand a chance of getting through Holyrood as I don't see party discipline holding in the SNP and probably Labour as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, aaid said:

That's why it's going through another consultation, there was a lot of suspicion that the original consultation was hijacked/railroaded by the pro-Self ID lobby and that it was being presented as a fait accompli.

FWIW, in its current form, it doesn't stand a chance of getting through Holyrood as I don't see party discipline holding in the SNP and probably Labour as well.

It won't go to the vote in its current form, IMO. When/if it does, there is no reason why it can't be a free vote. If there is one thing that the SNP are quite good at, it is compromises.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThistleWhistle said:

Essentially my original issue was how it could be exploited by men taking advantage of the situation by just saying they're a woman.  Although the present process is more difficult and onerous on the applicant surely that is the whole point as it makes it less susceptible to abuse.  Although making it less onerous will reduce the stresses of the applicant it is opening up at least 50% of the population in comparison to benefiting <1% so how safeguarding is achieved is key to the whole thing.  There’s rapists and murderers who’ve used GRA to self-identify to gain access to women prisons and there was also someone who self id’d to work in a rape centre as more headline catching examples.  It also potentially  just opens up pervy blokes using it as a way to gain access to toilets, changing rooms, etc.  However, my main concern is around my daughter and genuinely the more I read the less I like. 

There was an example down south where someone self-id’d as a woman and was allowed to look after school kids overnight whilst parents were not allowed to be told – it took a member of staff to resign to flag it up.  Again the concern here is it is open for paedophile blokes to gain access.   

There's no such thing currently in the UK as Self ID, or at least it has no legal basis.  The proposed legislation will change that.   The example you cite is where an organisation has set its own policy, it's not backed up by law.   Essentially, if I say "I'm a woman" then that has no legal basis, if you choose to treat me like one, that's your decision.

These cases do throw up the potential pitfalls and its all about people who would seek to abuse the system for their advantage.    I'm not sure what threat a man who self identifies as a woman poses, at least in comparison to the rest of the population.  For example, I'd imagine that a transwoman, going through transition would probably be less of a threat in a women's prison that some of the other female prisoners - I base that solely on watching Prisoner Cell Block H 30 years ago.  In fact they'd probably be more at risk themselves than a risk to others.      

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

It won't go to the vote in its current form, IMO. When/if it does, there is no reason why it can't be a free vote. If there is one thing that the SNP are quite good at, it is compromises.

 

It won't go to the vote in this parliament or at least it won't go through the whole process, that's for sure.    There won't be enough time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've worked in my time with children, sex offenders & all manner of ne'er do wells & damaged people, & my personal take on this is:

I have no issue really with self-ID, but to suggest that self-ID immediately gives you the rights & lived experiences of someone born female is palpable nonsense. That's not the same as saying they are automatically a threat though, simply that we need to ask the question of a self-ID'er 'OK. so what next?'

Trans people per se are no more or less likely to be abusers than anyone else; & most men who ID aas women are no more likely to be dishonest than someone wearing a burka is to be a terrorist hiding their ID from the Police or to pass a driving test. However...it happens, & when it does happen the consequences can range from unpleasant to phenomenally dangerous. So part & parcel of a fair law is how you manage inherent & foreseeable risks once identified. That invariably means a trade-off of rights to protect the 'majority' be they trans or otherwise from the minority who take advantage of any loophole to abuse.

I know enough about sex offenders to know they will use any trick in the book to access victims but even at a low level, the notion of a fake trans woman accessing female changing areas armed with a smartphone really isn't beyond logic to foresee.

Many of these problems have solutions over time, I'm sure. Some are not really problems. In the example above; a person would only be allowed unsupervised access to children overnight if they had been through all manner of checks & training, & rarely would they be alone. I used to have to supervise 7-11 year-olds getting changed for PE; many of them extremely introverted Muslim girls. A few didn't like it but I had Police checks coming out of my ears so even if I wasn't assisted by a TA, I never got complaints from parents.

There are a few things though that I think (for now anyway) have to be no-go areas even though they are obvious outliers in the debate. Former men in women's prisons for me (in part due to the significant vulnerability of the inmates) should at best be mega-risk assessed & at worst it's a no-go. Men with convictions for sex offenders should probably be housed in specialist units anyway (I used to visit one at HMP Whatton years ago) but accepting they are in short supply,  I'd not let them near any women's prison I've ever been in whatever they say they are...keeping in mind young children may also be housed there.

I don't think it's simple at all, but I think a fair proportion of the issues can be solved if not immediately, through changing facilities & attitudes. But the outliers can & do pose a risk, & we can't & shouldn't ignore that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Huddersfield said:

I've worked in my time with children, sex offenders & all manner of ne'er do wells & damaged people, & my personal take on this is:

I have no issue really with self-ID, but to suggest that self-ID immediately gives you the rights & lived experiences of someone born female is palpable nonsense. That's not the same as saying they are automatically a threat though, simply that we need to ask the question of a self-ID'er 'OK. so what next?'

Trans people per se are no more or less likely to be abusers than anyone else; & most men who ID aas women are no more likely to be dishonest than someone wearing a burka is to be a terrorist hiding their ID from the Police or to pass a driving test. However...it happens, & when it does happen the consequences can range from unpleasant to phenomenally dangerous. So part & parcel of a fair law is how you manage inherent & foreseeable risks once identified. That invariably means a trade-off of rights to protect the 'majority' be they trans or otherwise from the minority who take advantage of any loophole to abuse.

I know enough about sex offenders to know they will use any trick in the book to access victims but even at a low level, the notion of a fake trans woman accessing female changing areas armed with a smartphone really isn't beyond logic to foresee.

Many of these problems have solutions over time, I'm sure. Some are not really problems. In the example above; a person would only be allowed unsupervised access to children overnight if they had been through all manner of checks & training, & rarely would they be alone. I used to have to supervise 7-11 year-olds getting changed for PE; many of them extremely introverted Muslim girls. A few didn't like it but I had Police checks coming out of my ears so even if I wasn't assisted by a TA, I never got complaints from parents.

There are a few things though that I think (for now anyway) have to be no-go areas even though they are obvious outliers in the debate. Former men in women's prisons for me (in part due to the significant vulnerability of the inmates) should at best be mega-risk assessed & at worst it's a no-go. Men with convictions for sex offenders should probably be housed in specialist units anyway (I used to visit one at HMP Whatton years ago) but accepting they are in short supply,  I'd not let them near any women's prison I've ever been in whatever they say they are...keeping in mind young children may also be housed there.

I don't think it's simple at all, but I think a fair proportion of the issues can be solved if not immediately, through changing facilities & attitudes. But the outliers can & do pose a risk, & we can't & shouldn't ignore that.

Get off here with your actual experience and well reasoned and thought through arguments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Huddersfield said:

I've worked in my time with children, sex offenders & all manner of ne'er do wells & damaged people, & my personal take on this is:

I have no issue really with self-ID, but to suggest that self-ID immediately gives you the rights & lived experiences of someone born female is palpable nonsense. That's not the same as saying they are automatically a threat though, simply that we need to ask the question of a self-ID'er 'OK. so what next?'

Trans people per se are no more or less likely to be abusers than anyone else; & most men who ID aas women are no more likely to be dishonest than someone wearing a burka is to be a terrorist hiding their ID from the Police or to pass a driving test. However...it happens, & when it does happen the consequences can range from unpleasant to phenomenally dangerous. So part & parcel of a fair law is how you manage inherent & foreseeable risks once identified. That invariably means a trade-off of rights to protect the 'majority' be they trans or otherwise from the minority who take advantage of any loophole to abuse.

I know enough about sex offenders to know they will use any trick in the book to access victims but even at a low level, the notion of a fake trans woman accessing female changing areas armed with a smartphone really isn't beyond logic to foresee.

Many of these problems have solutions over time, I'm sure. Some are not really problems. In the example above; a person would only be allowed unsupervised access to children overnight if they had been through all manner of checks & training, & rarely would they be alone. I used to have to supervise 7-11 year-olds getting changed for PE; many of them extremely introverted Muslim girls. A few didn't like it but I had Police checks coming out of my ears so even if I wasn't assisted by a TA, I never got complaints from parents.

There are a few things though that I think (for now anyway) have to be no-go areas even though they are obvious outliers in the debate. Former men in women's prisons for me (in part due to the significant vulnerability of the inmates) should at best be mega-risk assessed & at worst it's a no-go. Men with convictions for sex offenders should probably be housed in specialist units anyway (I used to visit one at HMP Whatton years ago) but accepting they are in short supply,  I'd not let them near any women's prison I've ever been in whatever they say they are...keeping in mind young children may also be housed there.

I don't think it's simple at all, but I think a fair proportion of the issues can be solved if not immediately, through changing facilities & attitudes. But the outliers can & do pose a risk, & we can't & shouldn't ignore that.

Good post Huddersfield, well reasoned and thought through as Aaid says .

This subject feels like it would open a can of worms and I think a lot of people would rather not go there,  but if people like yourself were looking and dealing with it in a pragmatic sensible way I am fairly confident that attitudes could  be changed. 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

Good post Huddersfield, well reasoned and thought through as Aaid says .

This subject feels like it would open a can of worms and I think a lot of people would rather not go there,  but if people like yourself were looking and dealing with it in a pragmatic sensible way I am fairly confident that attitudes could  be changed. 



 

Haha - if only I'd been that good at influencing social attitudes I'd have probably gone into politics instead of being paid buttons to keep the aforementioned ne'er do wells out of trouble. But thanks for the kind words :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...