Indyref 2 (2)

[aaid]

21 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.

It's up to the sports authorities to make their own decisions on this.   With the best will in the world, even if they wanted to, given sport is international, I doubt it is something which the Scottish Government can legislate on.

[aaid]

2 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

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

Legal sex.

[AlfieMoon]

2 hours 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.

I think this is a good example of where the reasoned debate and thinking sometimes breaks down. And that’s not having a go at you btw - my own head is in a spin with all of it. 
 

For the scenario you have mentioned to occur - people need to understand what currently happens. First of all - a good starting point is to treat it as a change scenario. What is the as is? And what is it that’s changing? 
 

So just now - it is/was already possible for someone to change gender. (UK process) 

 

To apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate under the Standard Application Process the person needs to demonstrate that:

• They are at least 18 years old;
• They have lived fully for the last two years in their acquired gender and that they intend to live permanently in their acquired gender for the rest of their life;
• They have, or have had, gender dysphoria.  They are required to provide two medical reports (one from their GP and one from their Gender Specialist) confirming the diagnosis and detailing any transition-related medical treatment (such as psychological counselling, hormones and/or surgical procedures) that they have received.  It is not necessary for the person to have undergone any surgery but if they haven’t then one of the reports should indicate whether they are waiting for any surgery or give any reason for the person deciding not to have any surgery.

https://www.equality-network.org/your-rights/gender-recognition/

So, first of all-  presumably all the common scenarios talked about (rape crisis centres, toilets and safe spaces) already have an exposure to the perceived ‘risks’ - as people currently have a valid and available process to change gender. That seems a sensible starting point to recognise.

 

 

So, if we then focus on the change: 

- Lowering age eligibility to include 16/17* year olds. 

- Reduction of term required for living in acquired gender, from 2 years to 3 months. (*6 months for 16/17 year olds). 

- Removal of need for medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. 
 

You can generally see why those 3 key points are targeted at making the process less intrusive to the trans individuals subject to the process. The appropriateness of each of them is there to debate and not everyone will agree. 
 

People are instinctively drawn to the fear scenarios of people being abused. The question is - if there was an accepted existing process with acceptable risks, then will the changes open the floodgates? One half of the commentary on this topic is that it would indeed open the floodgates for abusers, sex predators and so on. I suppose the question is what change is perceived to be enabling that?  The removal of requirement for medical professional diagnosis is arguably a big step, but the new process is still insisting on the person having lived in acquired gender for 3 months - before applying. I’m not sure what evidence is required, or how robust the evidentiary process is but it is not insignificant to legally commit that you; a) have lived an acquired gender for 3 months, and b) Will do so moving forward. 

That then has to be approved by a panel. Currently for the UK that means applying to the UK Government’s Gender Recognition Panel. For Scotland moving forward, this will now be the Registrar General for Scotland. 
 

I think a lot of the narrative has simplified it as predators and vulnerable people making bad decisions, conflated it with knock on consequences to equality act, workplaces, safe spaces and sport.  All of those things are already in play with the pre-existing process surely. The debate and potential increase in number of trans people brings those issues to the fore. They need to be worked through in any case.  
 

It’s clearly not the most simple of things. Folk are naturally fearful of change and the government and press could probably have done a better job at communicating to the general public to get a clear message across. All that aside, I’m sure that in years to come everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about. 

Edited December 23, 2022 by AlfieMoon

[phart]

3 hours ago, duncan II said:

 

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. 
 

 

 

Like all things it's a lot more complicated than we think.

Almost all attempts to pin down the definition of a "sex" has contradictions. XY chromsome havers in some circumstances can give birth. 1:4500 births have ambigious genitalia for instance.

There are two gametes that's true but then there are instances where someone can produce both or neither.

So any attempt to try and throw a conceptual blanket over everyone with two variables only doesn't cover everyone.

It's like the universe 99% of atoms are Hydrogen and Helium, in most circumstances you'd be grand just going with that. However a true picture requires the whole periodic table and you can't tell the full picture with just a binary table.

[PapofGlencoe]

Just now, aaid said:

It's up to the sports authorities to make their own decisions on this.   With the best will in the world, even if they wanted to, given sport is international, I doubt it is something which the Scottish Government can legislate on.

They should give legal clarity to protect women's sport surely where they can.  Don't see why it would be difficult to say to bodies they can't be sued for this aspect, although open to bodies to interprate inclusion if they wish (in say table tennis or something less obviously problematic).

[phart]

30 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.

The sport issue is actually a problem. Quite a lot of literarure and evidence showing the problems associated with androgens etc and their performance enhancing effects. Which is why sports are legislating it in the way we're seeing.

It has to be sorted in some way, the sports were delineated for a reason.

[aaid]

3 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

They should give legal clarity to protect women's sport surely where they can.  Don't see why it would be difficult to say to bodies they can't be sued for this aspect, although open to bodies to interprate inclusion if they wish (in say table tennis or something less obviously problematic).

Again - I suspect that's another issue for the Equality Act and not within the scope of this bill, i.e. its the same today as it is tomorrow.

[PapofGlencoe]

1 minute ago, aaid said:

Again - I suspect that's another issue for the Equality Act and not within the scope of this bill, i.e. its the same today as it is tomorrow.

Cool, if the act means people can get certificates more easily we may see an upsurge.  The act also appears to have sent the message GRCs mean it's more difficult to justify exclusio and that trans arnt just trans, theyre legally women.  I hope someone sensible has a pencil ready to sort it out because it's clearly an issue.

 

[aaid]

5 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

The act also appears to have sent the message GRCs mean it's more difficult to justify exclusio and that trans arnt just trans, theyre legally women.  I hope someone sensible has a pencil ready to sort it out because it's clearly an issue.

 

Does it?

[ThistleWhistle]

5 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. 

I wouldn't mind a crack when I'm back in the office trying to avoid paperwork next week. Can't say I'm neutral on the subject but with 20+ years managing insurance programs for corporate clients and councils, fcii, MSc Risk Management passed with distinction, a ball hair away off being published for my ethics paper on Oxfam and looking through that lense have genuine concerns for the safety of my daughter, wife, mum and women in general.

Wouldn't mind committing it to paper though to test my own logic to make sure I'm not havering pish so could benefit the both of us and anyone else interested in the sleepy ramblings of a bloke fueled on caffeine and the arse end of the Roses tin.

[ParisInAKilt]

6 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

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

Definitely not, although some will imply that’s the case 

[ThistleWhistle]

1 hour ago, phart said:

The sport issue is actually a problem. Quite a lot of literarure and evidence showing the problems associated with androgens etc and their performance enhancing effects. Which is why sports are legislating it in the way we're seeing.

It has to be sorted in some way, the sports were delineated for a reason.

Can't remember if it was cycling and/or rowing in the US but they've recently said its OK for biological blokes to compete in the female category.  

However in the mixed team event it has to be 2 biological blokes and 2 biological females- the misogyny and hypocrisy is wild.

[phart]

5 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said:

Can't remember if it was cycling and/or rowing in the US but they've recently said its OK for biological blokes to compete in the female category.  

However in the mixed team event it has to be 2 biological blokes and 2 biological females- the misogyny and hypocrisy is wild.

Cycling I believe , although could be rowing as well.

Other sports have went the other way.

All a seperate issue than the actual vote in Scottish parliament, important issue though in its own right.

Androgens are a hell of a drug.

[ThistleWhistle]

1 hour ago, PapofGlencoe said:

Cool, if the act means people can get certificates more easily we may see an upsurge.  The act also appears to have sent the message GRCs mean it's more difficult to justify exclusio and that trans arnt just trans, theyre legally women.  I hope someone sensible has a pencil ready to sort it out because it's clearly an issue.

 

My 7 year old daughter at the time plays under 10s and ended up against a lad who was easily 10 going on 11.  Coaches are allowed to keep kids down a year if u12s is too big a gap but only in the girls system.  Our coach was asked about it and said it wasn't her place to challenge and inclusivity was paramount- folk are genuinely scared of questioning this stuff.  Unfortunately, I had to point out surely safety trumps inclusivity but it wasn't until I pointed out the league, the club board, our coaches and their coach could be held negligent in the event of serious injury that they began to listen as the current systems are quite obviously not fit for purpose. I've been invited to a meeting so they're either interested or I'm about to be arrested.

The league won't allow a 10-11 year old lad play against 8-9 year olds due to safety and there won't be any evidence they can give to say its suddenly fine v girls.  The coaches haven't advised in writing that the girls could play 10 year old girls let alone boys and informed parents of the additional risks in comparison to the boys game therefore and without parents accepting these are wide open. The coach of the opposition wouldn't be able to produce any documentation as to why they weren't ready for the u12s and in reality holding them back was just taking the piss.

It's a fucking mess - god I used to be fun but now I'm a right boring bastard!

[Orraloon]

58 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said:

My 7 year old daughter at the time plays under 10s and ended up against a lad who was easily 10 going on 11.  Coaches are allowed to keep kids down a year if u12s is too big a gap but only in the girls system.  Our coach was asked about it and said it wasn't her place to challenge and inclusivity was paramount- folk are genuinely scared of questioning this stuff.  Unfortunately, I had to point out surely safety trumps inclusivity but it wasn't until I pointed out the league, the club board, our coaches and their coach could be held negligent in the event of serious injury that they began to listen as the current systems are quite obviously not fit for purpose. I've been invited to a meeting so they're either interested or I'm about to be arrested.

The league won't allow a 10-11 year old lad play against 8-9 year olds due to safety and there won't be any evidence they can give to say its suddenly fine v girls.  The coaches haven't advised in writing that the girls could play 10 year old girls let alone boys and informed parents of the additional risks in comparison to the boys game therefore and without parents accepting these are wide open. The coach of the opposition wouldn't be able to produce any documentation as to why they weren't ready for the u12s and in reality holding them back was just taking the piss.

It's a fucking mess - god I used to be fun but now I'm a right boring bastard!

Are these coaches paid employees?

[Orraloon]

7 hours 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. 

I agree. If they stopped this legislation so soon after the Supreme Court ruling it would it would be a help rather than a hindrance to Independence. The more they do this, the more folk will get pissed off by Westminster, IMO. Might be all part of Nicola's cunning plan? 😉

Edited December 23, 2022 by Orraloon

[ThistleWhistle]

40 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Are these coaches paid employees?

No but they still have a duty of care and would be picked up under the club's insurance under the definition of 'employee' even volunteering. It wouldn't be themselves on the hook as they'd be acting vicariously for the club.  In extreme cases it could lead to a court hearing they'd potentially have to attend  which isn't very nice.

 

Directors of the club or of the league could be held personally accountable though depending on circumstances. Say a smart arsed insurance bloke pointed out massive holes in the safety  system, they ignore it and then a serious injury occurred then potentially they could have a case to answer individually although it would more likely be the organisation itself held accountable.

Digby Brown would be licking their lips.

Edited December 23, 2022 by ThistleWhistle

[Malcolm]

1 hour ago, Orraloon said:

I agree. If they stopped this legislation so soon after the Supreme Court ruling it would it would be a help rather than a hindrance to Independence. The more they do this, the more folk will get pissed off by Westminster, IMO. Might be all part of Nicola's cunning plan? 😉

in general yes, on this specific case, no.  The majority of the public don’t want this. 

[Malcolm]

Apparently women get cheaper car insurance 🤔

[stocky]

Watching Mrs Doubtfire with the weans right now on C4 .

 

 

A man dressing and identifying as a woman using men's and women's toilets.

Don't see any issue.

Same as  99%of the population..

and this was in the 80's..

 

Merry Christmas everyone....

 

[aaid]

5 minutes ago, stocky said:

Watching Mrs Doubtfire with the weans right now on C4 .

 

 

A man dressing and identifying as a woman using men's and women's toilets.

Don't see any issue.

Same as  99%of the population..

and this was in the 80's..

 

Merry Christmas everyone....

 

Was based on some old wifie from Edinburgh apparently.  

[hampden_loon2878]

So uk government looking at the GRA to see if it’s a devolved issue, surely to fuck if it comes back it is, then sturgeon needs to answer some questions as she will have known this, but pushed forward with it. This will rumble on for ages and pull yes voters who do not agree on the issue more toward the uk government.. what a fucking shit show 

[Ally Bongo]

15 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

So uk government looking at the GRA to see if it’s a devolved issue, surely to fuck if it comes back it is, then sturgeon needs to answer some questions as she will have known this, but pushed forward with it. This will rumble on for ages and pull yes voters who do not agree on the issue more toward the uk government.. what a fucking shit show 

Maybe that was her cunning plan all along ....

As already pointed out this is being done in many other countries

Westminster are pishing against the wind

[Tartan_Tonna]

As I predicted. The irish Independence Party of 1918. 2.0. The SNP - formerly the party of Independence. 

Had no intentions of delivering independence with the pretenderendum, the 7 mandates, the lady date and the non binary date.

Its up to big Eck and the Alba Party to save women's rights and Scottish Independence.

Free by 2026. Retired SNP president Mike Russell's 11 point plan has been to destroy the SNP, he's obviously not got the stamina for front line politics like big Eck and the Alba Party. 

Nicola's tucked him in under the covers, given him a wee kiss and switched off the Indy lamp. 

Merry Terfmas, ya filthy animals. And a happy new year. 

As for the Tories. Well. I predict they will win the 2024 General election in England, now that Labour doesn't know what a woman is. And nice man Riki 2 snacks and Matt Handcock forgiven having eaten kangeroo testicals. That's oor Matt! Nice Guy. God save the King. Says Nicola. Under his eye! 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Tartan_Tonna

[hampden_loon2878]

3 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

Maybe that was her cunning plan all along ....

As already pointed out this is being done in many other countries

Westminster are pishing against the wind

You are completely missing the point, lack of Wit maybe? We need every voter for independence!!! Is this gaining voters???