Indyref 2 (2)

[aaid]

17 minutes ago, exile said:

I started out with no opinion on this matter (and still not certain of the best solution) but it's been pushed so hard so often in this thread (or rather the old one) that I ended up looking into it.

And I asked a question but still have not heard anyone who opposes the bill point to any clause in it, that legalises or liberates anyone to do any harm. Still happy to have it pointed out now. 

The argument seems to be that because of what is written on a piece of paper, some people are more likely to commit a crime.

The argument - as I understand it - is that if someone has a GRC then - take the example of a woman’s safe space, then the service provider may err on the side of caution, concerned about being in breach of the Equality Act and let someone in that shouldn’t be there.   These though are issues with the equality act or rather how it’s being implemented.

Another point is that because the process of obtaining a GRC was so involved and took such a long time that would act as a barrier to a bad faith actor, however, it also acted as a barrier to loads of genuine and harmless trans people, but not having a GRC has not stopped predatory men accessing single sex spaces. 

[Hertsscot]

8 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

Due to the divisiveness the one question this raises is can the SNP now go into a plebiscite election or referendum with Nicola Sturgeon at it's head  ?

Bizarrely Sturgeon was meant to gain votes from women that Salmond lost because they didn't trust him. Hasn't worked out well on this issue.

[Orraloon]

8 hours ago, Malcolm said:

Thankfully badenoch has said that the uk government are going to review the position.  At least we can be comfortable knowing that the adults finally are stepping in.

Trying too with that one, Bud. 😂

[Orraloon]

40 minutes ago, Hertsscot said:

Bizarrely Sturgeon was meant to gain votes from women that Salmond lost because they didn't trust him. Hasn't worked out well on this issue.

How many votes do you think she might have lost over this issue? 

[ParisInAKilt]

Can’t we even know?

Loss a referendum? It was the bigot fault 

[Squirrelhumper]

2 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Can’t we even know?

Loss a referendum? It was the bigot fault 

So if you disagree with this legislation you are a bigot?

[hampden_loon2878]

The uk government would be stupid not to challenge this bill, if they even just challange it they will hoover up votes. You can see it a mile off. This will rumble on

[hampden_loon2878]

4 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

So if you disagree with this legislation you are a bigot?

Some on here would try to imply that, everyone knows who 

[Malcolm]

1 hour ago, Orraloon said:

Trying too with that one, Bud. 😂

😂😂😂😂

[TDYER63]

Can someone neutral on this / who doesn’t have their own agenda explain where the real concerns are . I am a woman and I can honestly say this is not concerning me at all, but I may not have all the facts. On this issue about biological men accessing women’s toilets, is this really as big a deal as is being made out ? I was at the theatre a couple of weeks ago and used unisex toilets without fear  I was going to be raped.
Someone made a joke about using the women’s toilets at Hampden well I can tell you 99% of the time its the other way round in social spaces. Massive queues at ladies toilets and the men strolling in and out in 10 seconds. I would happily use the mens toilets . 
There is clearly more to it than this but from what I an reading the main criticism is being directed at it due to women being unsafe. 

[exile]

35 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

The uk government would be stupid not to challenge this bill, if they even just challange it they will hoover up votes. You can see it a mile off. This will rumble on

I don't think the likes of Alister Jack and his London masters trampling over a Scottish Parliament cross-party majority would be a great vote winner. More likely the reverse. 

[hampden_loon2878]

14 minutes ago, exile said:

I don't think the likes of Alister Jack and his London masters trampling over a Scottish Parliament cross-party majority would be a great vote winner. More likely the reverse. 

Even just a suggestive challenge, no action just bluster would swing some votes. 

[duncan II]

For me, speaking as a non-expert as to the intricacies of the legislation but fairly interested observer, the number one conclusion I take away from it all is that there are complete arseholes on both sides. Beyond the shouting, the abusive name-calling, the accusations, I'm finding it difficult to understand it all. I saw two former Labour leaders on opposite sides of it yesterday, one refusing to engage with the other, both just firing insults at the other side into the ether.

As a (in my mind) decent human being, my instinct is, of course, one of inclusion. People should be able to live the life they choose. The end.

I have to admit, though, I've been concerned by a view I'm continually seeing of there being more than two sexes, being espoused as fact. I understand there are recognised genders and people living their preferred life etc. But to me, notwithstanding a tiny, tiny number of cases of people of indeterminate sex, there are, biologically and anatomically, only two recognisable sexes. No-one is assigned a sex. As far as I know, this isn't part of the official position of the Scottish government or those simply looking for inclusivity. Please tell me that's true. Cos I would find it difficult to support those who promote what is essentially flat earthism. But I see it a lot on Twitter. 
 

But yeah, bottom line, those who shout loudest coming to the fore in this whole issue. Awful to witness.

 

[hampden_loon2878]

the sooner that lunatic greens are replaced as the second largest Indy party the better

 

https://dailybusinessgroup.co.uk/2022/12/alba-party-on-course-for-20-msps-says-poll/amp/

[exile]

9 hours ago, aaid said:

The argument - as I understand it - is that if someone has a GRC then - take the example of a woman’s safe space, then the service provider may err on the side of caution, concerned about being in breach of the Equality Act and let someone in that shouldn’t be there.   These though are issues with the equality act or rather how it’s being implemented.

Another point is that because the process of obtaining a GRC was so involved and took such a long time that would act as a barrier to a bad faith actor, however, it also acted as a barrier to loads of genuine and harmless trans people, but not having a GRC has not stopped predatory men accessing single sex spaces. 

But as I understand it the act itself is not about access to safe spaces.

The nub of the matter seems to be about the likelihood of committing what is already an offence, because of a change in status. 

I think your earlier example of the marriage certificate is very apt. Let's suppose it's possible that a man is more likely to force himself on a woman if they are married. It may be a small likelihood but it is tolerated. Legislation that made it easier to get a marriage certificate would not provoke such a backlash, at least not likely to be on grounds of potential impact on women's safety?    

Edited December 23, 2022 by exile

[TDYER63]

50 minutes ago, duncan II said:

For me, speaking as a non-expert as to the intricacies of the legislation but fairly interested observer, the number one conclusion I take away from it all is that there are complete arseholes on both sides. Beyond the shouting, the abusive name-calling, the accusations, I'm finding it difficult to understand it all. I saw two former Labour leaders on opposite sides of it yesterday, one refusing to engage with the other, both just firing insults at the other side into the ether.

As a (in my mind) decent human being, my instinct is, of course, one of inclusion. People should be able to live the life they choose. The end.

I have to admit, though, I've been concerned by a view I'm continually seeing of there being more than two sexes, being espoused as fact. I understand there are recognised genders and people living their preferred life etc. But to me, notwithstanding a tiny, tiny number of cases of people of indeterminate sex, there are, biologically and anatomically, only two recognisable sexes. No-one is assigned a sex. As far as I know, this isn't part of the official position of the Scottish government or those simply looking for inclusivity. Please tell me that's true. Cos I would find it difficult to support those who promote what is essentially flat earthism. But I see it a lot on Twitter. 
 

But yeah, bottom line, those who shout loudest coming to the fore in this whole issue. Awful to witness.

 

There seems to be no room for reasonable debate. Even on here. Its just one side screaming against the other. The underlying subject matter gets lost.

I agree on the biological point too. Thats sort of where i was coming from when i mentioned about pushing the boundaries in another post. Who knows where it will end up. 

 

[exile]

9 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

There seems to be no room for reasonable debate. Even on here. Its just one side screaming against the other. The underlying subject matter gets lost.

I agree on the biological point too. Thats sort of where i was coming from when i mentioned about pushing the boundaries in another post. Who knows where it will end up. 

 

I don't think the debate on here is unreasonable. Most views, at least in the current phase, are nuanced and not screaming.

[TDYER63]

1 minute ago, exile said:

I don't think the debate on here is unreasonable. Most views, at least in the current phase, are nuanced and not screaming.

Ok maybe  not actual screaming, but absolutely no chance of seeing or listening to the other side by many. 

[Alibi]

As I understand it, the changes to the GRC procedure are reasonable, but the self-ID stuff means that if someone who is a man states that they are a woman, everyone has to accept that or they may possibly be charged with a hate crime - "misgendering" seems to be an offence now.  Where things become problematic is when a male-bodied person identifying as a woman is working in, an an example, a rape crisis centre and women have to accept them as a female even though they are not.  With goodwill all round, this sort of thing should not arise, but lots of authorities seem to be in thrall to Stonewall and are going along with this nonsense.  I would have thought that a suitable amendment to the legislation could have been added to exempt such sensitive sectors from the legislation.  You have to ask why a transwoman would want to run a rape crisis centre, but there is actually one who currently does.

The problem with laws that have reasonable intention is that people will push them as far as possible.  The attitude of Nicola Sturgeon in particular over this matter has been pretty appalling, with her insistence that women's concerns are "not valid".  With goodwill, this matter could have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction but she seems to have gone out of her way to prioritise something that seems to be a personal obsession for some reason - and it certainly won't have attracted many female voters to the cause although she doesn't seem to be bothered about that.

[Malcolm]

1 hour ago, Alibi said:

As I understand it, the changes to the GRC procedure are reasonable, but the self-ID stuff means that if someone who is a man states that they are a woman, everyone has to accept that or they may possibly be charged with a hate crime - "misgendering" seems to be an offence now.  Where things become problematic is when a male-bodied person identifying as a woman is working in, an an example, a rape crisis centre and women have to accept them as a female even though they are not.  With goodwill all round, this sort of thing should not arise, but lots of authorities seem to be in thrall to Stonewall and are going along with this nonsense.  I would have thought that a suitable amendment to the legislation could have been added to exempt such sensitive sectors from the legislation.  You have to ask why a transwoman would want to run a rape crisis centre, but there is actually one who currently does.

The problem with laws that have reasonable intention is that people will push them as far as possible.  The attitude of Nicola Sturgeon in particular over this matter has been pretty appalling, with her insistence that women's concerns are "not valid".  With goodwill, this matter could have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction but she seems to have gone out of her way to prioritise something that seems to be a personal obsession for some reason - and it certainly won't have attracted many female voters to the cause although she doesn't seem to be bothered about that.

the worlds gone fucking mad.  Each year madder than the last.

[aaid]

48 minutes ago, Alibi said:

As I understand it, the changes to the GRC procedure are reasonable, but the self-ID stuff means that if someone who is a man states that they are a woman, everyone has to accept that or they may possibly be charged with a hate crime - "misgendering" seems to be an offence now. 

This is founded on a few fallacies. As things *currently* stand.  A trans person doesn't need to have a GRC to be considered as someone belonging to a protected category.   If you mistakenly misgender someone you will not be prosecuted.   If you continue to do so - knowing full well that is not how they wish to be referred to - particularly if it's accompanied with other offensive speech, then you may be prosecuted.   Your genuine belief that people cannot transition won't help you here, racists genuinely believe that their race is superior to others but they can't say stuff like that either.    The key thing though is that nothing changes because of Self Id, it is the same now as it will be after. 

 

Quote

Where things become problematic is when a male-bodied person identifying as a woman is working in, an an example, a rape crisis centre and women have to accept them as a female even though they are not.  With goodwill all round, this sort of thing should not arise, but lots of authorities seem to be in thrall to Stonewall and are going along with this nonsense.  I would have thought that a suitable amendment to the legislation could have been added to exempt such sensitive sectors from the legislation

I think this betrays a lack of understanding of what the act is trying to achieve and what the hierarchy of legislation is here.   There are two pieces of legislation that covers the situation which you describe above.   The first one is the Gender Recognition Act 2004.   This act is the piece of legislation which covers how someone can change their legal gender.  That is all that it does.   

The other piece of legislation is the Equality Act 2010 which is a much more complex and lengthy piece of legislation which covers discrimination in the workplace and in wider society.   It rolled up a raft of different anti-discrimination legislation into a single act.  It is reserved legislation, even if the Scottish Parliament wanted to change it, it couldn't.  In fact the GRR Bill goes so far as to explicitly state that it doesn't impact it.

In the context of this argument, there is specific legislation which covers what happens where there are competing rights between different protected groups.   So for example, it allows service providers to exclude trans-women from single sex spaces as long as that is proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.   

That the vast majority of rape support organisations allow trans women to be in their premises isn't because they can't, its because they chose to do so.  I suspect that they are far more better placed to make that decision than you or I do.

 

Quote

You have to ask why a transwoman would want to run a rape crisis centre, but there is actually one who currently does.

Hallelujah - you understand that it isn't the GRR Bill which enables a trans women to run a rape crisis centre - AFAIK I'm not sure that individual actually has a GRC.

[PapofGlencoe]

Do people in the know, know how this affects women sport? Has guidance been produced?

Up til now, it's been quite hard for someone to get a certificate. Now it's easier, will they be able to simply write a form and it's more difficult to challenge stopping male bodied people competing against women?  How do they justify exclusion if we're saying they're actually women, not trans? Are we saying they're women now in totality?  

I'm not a women, so not sure about the safety aspect . However it seems clear cut to me transwomen shouldn't compete in sport and should justify exclusion.  Does the act show this?

I don't for a second believe trans people would do this just for a sporting advantage but still don't think they should be competing.

With compromise on both sides people would get along but I agree there seems to be a push too much from two extreme views.

[Malcolm]

8 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

Do people in the know, know how this affects women sport? Has guidance been produced?

Up til now, it's been quite hard for someone to get a certificate. Now it's easier, will they be able to simply write a form and it's more difficult to challenge stopping male bodied people competing against women?  How do they justify exclusion if we're saying they're actually women, not trans? Are we saying they're women now in totality?  

I'm not a women, so not sure about the safety aspect . However it seems clear cut to me transwomen shouldn't compete in sport and should justify exclusion.  Does the act show this?

I don't for a second believe trans people would do this just for a sporting advantage but still don't think they should be competing.

With compromise on both sides people would get along but I agree there seems to be a push too much from two extreme views.

totally agree, you can’t have trans women competing in womens sport as they are genetically men.

[aaid]

3 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

Can someone neutral on this / who doesn’t have their own agenda explain where the real concerns are . I am a woman and I can honestly say this is not concerning me at all, but I may not have all the facts. On this issue about biological men accessing women’s toilets, is this really as big a deal as is being made out ? I was at the theatre a couple of weeks ago and used unisex toilets without fear  I was going to be raped.
Someone made a joke about using the women’s toilets at Hampden well I can tell you 99% of the time its the other way round in social spaces. Massive queues at ladies toilets and the men strolling in and out in 10 seconds. I would happily use the mens toilets . 
There is clearly more to it than this but from what I an reading the main criticism is being directed at it due to women being unsafe. 

My view is that it isn't the GRR bill that people have issues with.   I'm focussing on people with genuine concerns here - there are plenty of nasty right wing types who have jumped on the bandwagon here and are fighting a culture war.  There are also those who are demonstrating political opportunism.

At the crux of this is that there is a belief that women should be entitled to feel safe and secure particularly in women-only spaces.   That's hard to disagree with and the fundamental reason why that isn't the case is because of predatory males and ultimately that is something which males need to deal with.

However trans people and specifically the Equality Act cause a problem for that.   You can't just stick your head in the sand and pretend they don't exist.  Neither can you discriminate disproportionately against them.

The fact that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 placed such a onerous process on someone legally transitioning meant that the numbers of people legally transitioning meant that numbers were fairly low - in the UK - as of December 2020 - there had only been 5871 GRCs issued.    As we've seen though the lack of a GRC as far as the Equality Act is irrelevant to someone being considered transgender.

And with the best will in the world, some predatory men, do slip though the cracks.   In every aspect of human life we accept that all we can do is to deal with prosecuting the perpetrators and learn from mistakes.

The objection to the GRR Bill seem to be that because it will make it easier for people to transition, then that will mean there will be more people who have a GRC and that as a consequence there will be more be more rapey men transitioning.

I don't agree with the last point but I think that's the crux of the argument.   Would be better though if rapey men stopped being so rapey and that non-rapey men called out the behaviour that normalises that.





 

[PapofGlencoe]

23 minutes ago, aaid said:

This is founded on a few fallacies. As things *currently* stand.  A trans person doesn't need to have a GRC to be considered as someone belonging to a protected category.   If you mistakenly misgender someone you will not be prosecuted.   If you continue to do so - knowing full well that is not how they wish to be referred to - particularly if it's accompanied with other offensive speech, then you may be prosecuted.   Your genuine belief that people cannot transition won't help you here, racists genuinely believe that their race is superior to others but they can't say stuff like that either.    The key thing though is that nothing changes because of Self Id, it is the same now as it will be after. 

 

I think this betrays a lack of understanding of what the act is trying to achieve and what the hierarchy of legislation is here.   There are two pieces of legislation that covers the situation which you describe above.   The first one is the Gender Recognition Act 2004.   This act is the piece of legislation which covers how someone can change their legal gender.  That is all that it does.   

The other piece of legislation is the Equality Act 2010 which is a much more complex and lengthy piece of legislation which covers discrimination in the workplace and in wider society.   It rolled up a raft of different anti-discrimination legislation into a single act.  It is reserved legislation, even if the Scottish Parliament wanted to change it, it couldn't.  In fact the GRR Bill goes so far as to explicitly state that it doesn't impact it.

In the context of this argument, there is specific legislation which covers what happens where there are competing rights between different protected groups.   So for example, it allows service providers to exclude trans-women from single sex spaces as long as that is proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.   

That the vast majority of rape support organisations allow trans women to be in their premises isn't because they can't, its because they chose to do so.  I suspect that they are far more better placed to make that decision than you or I do.

 

Hallelujah - you understand that it isn't the GRR Bill which enables a trans women to run a rape crisis centre - AFAIK I'm not sure that individual actually has a GRC.

Surely to Christ people should be able to say people can't change actual sex and not be considered on a par with racists?  Is this where we are now? May have nothing to do with this act but that needs rectified somewhere if that's the case. Surely no haha

One is an abhorrent prejudice and one is a fact.  I don't think anyone really believes someones changing their sex, apart from a few.  If someone is being abusive that's another thing entirely