Indyref 2 (2) - Page 120 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Indyref 2 (2)


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Alibi said:

What about the big lie which is at the root of all this?  The lie that "transwomen ARE women"?  I capitalise the word "are" because that's the crucial point.  Transwomen may actually believe they are women, they may want to live as women and I see no problem with that, but in the real world they are NOT actually women.  That is no reason to wish any harm to them, nor to persecute them; of course they should be allowed to live as they wish, and I think most people would agree. Furthermore, sex is determined by biology right down to the level of chromosomes in every cell of your body, and you cannot change that. If you try to deny reality, you end up tying yourself in knots, as Sturgeon did over the "Isla Bryson" case.  There is a good case to have GRR if done sensibly, but account should still be taken of biological reality.  And self ID is a ludicrous concept - as I've said before, if I decided to live in a stable & self ID as a horse, I still wouldn't be allowed to run in the 2.30 at Ayr, and rightly so.

For clarity, do you personally believe that transwomen are actually women?  Yes or no? Can you bring yourself to disassociate yourself from the views of many of the SNP leadership on this one and abide by scientific reality?

You really are a sad old bigot.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One heartening thing from this scandal is how well the support for independence has held up in polls. That alone is a kick in the teeth to unionists.

Support has fallen a couple of percent following the scandals but that is it. Look at what the unionist media has thrown at this and continue to throw. Look at the reports and articles claiming that Scottish independence has been killed off. Pure arrogant and wishful thinking and a distinct lack of understanding of how strong a big core of Scots feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

One heartening thing from this scandal is how well the support for independence has held up in polls. That alone is a kick in the teeth to unionists.

Support has fallen a couple of percent following the scandals but that is it. Look at what the unionist media has thrown at this and continue to throw. Look at the reports and articles claiming that Scottish independence has been killed off. Pure arrogant and wishful thinking and a distinct lack of understanding of how strong a big core of Scots feel.

yes that is the encouraging p[art, however it wont last forever under this snp government, the HMPA'S, Juryless trials, GRR, bottle return scheme, ferries will start to di into the subconsciousness of the voting public,, the snp need a change of direction fast

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2023 at 5:57 PM, aaid said:

You really are a sad old bigot.  

I'm not having that. That is clear defamation.  Just because someone disagrees with some of your shite doesn't mean they're a bigot.  I'm certainly not sad, and in the current climate I don't regard myself as old.  Away and shite a porcupine, you pathetic wee troll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

yes that is the encouraging p[art, however it wont last forever under this snp government, the HMPA'S, Juryless trials, GRR, bottle return scheme, ferries will start to di into the subconsciousness of the voting public,, the snp need a change of direction fast

 

There was a tipping point around Dec/Jan of this year where it started to look like Scotland was in favour of independence and something to build upon.  We were looking at consistent polling at over 50% and a defacto vote.  If it started to look like a majority in favour, I think momentum may have pushed it higher.

Then Isla Bryson, arrests and a sub par leader only a few months later.  

Such a waste of an opportunity and so needless.  

We then have carpetbaggers dulling down the only thing the SNP had in their gift - offer the people an independence mandate.  We even had some laughing at it during the election of an SNP leader.  

Half of the SNP think we had our chance in 2014 and don't have the stomach for it.  It's easier to tread water than attempt to actually do anything.  Unfortunately for them without presenting Scotland with a choice, they will become irrelevant and down the swanny will their pensions go too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Alibi said:

I'm not having that. That is clear defamation.  Just because someone disagrees with some of your shite doesn't mean they're a bigot.  I'm certainly not sad, and in the current climate I don't regard myself as old.  Away and shite a porcupine, you pathetic wee troll.

I'm not sure about defamation !! but clearly a deflection from answering the question you posed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I'm not sure about defamation !! but clearly a deflection from answering the question you posed.

If you don’t think that quoting a post and deliberately going through it and changing all the pronouns and nouns to be he, him, etc is not discriminatory and is worthy of a response then that’s your opinion, I think differently.

TBH, I haven’t even read the “response” so that “I’ll show you” action didn’t really work.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, aaid said:

If you don’t think that quoting a post and deliberately going through it and changing all the pronouns and nouns to be he, him, etc is not discriminatory and is worthy of a response then that’s your opinion, I think differently.

TBH, I haven’t even read the “response” so that “I’ll show you” action didn’t really work.  

 

You've read a comment, quoted it and called someone a bigot on this page of this thread.   

I've read same comment, noticed it has a question threaded through it which youve ignored and rather insulted.

It's all on this page.

No idea what the other gibberish whether from you or Alibi is about

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will make this clear.

The reasons why “men” are given access to “women-only” spaces is because the Equality Act 2010 states that transgender is a protected characteristic and so it would be illegal to discriminate against someone because of that.

There are exceptions in the act which state that service providers may discriminate against people if it can be proved that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.   However lots of service providers may choose to admit transgender women on their own discretion.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination#:~:text=The Equality Act 2010 says,process to reassign your sex.

This article outlines what the Equalities Commission says about transgender rights under the Equalities Act.   There’s a few thing that are important.  The first one is that someone does not have to have a GR certificate, in fact they do not need to have started the process of obtaining one.  They don’t need to have gone through any sort of medical or surgical procedures.  In fact, all they have to do is give a declaration, self-id if you like.

I’ll point this out again, having a GRC makes no difference.   All the horrible things that people said would happened if Scotland passed the GRR bill are actually happening now, children are being raped, there was another case last week.  Why would some predatory male need to go through the shortened process that the GRR bill would provide you with a GRC, when having a GRC makes no difference, all you have to do is pretend to live your life as a woman and the Equalities Act protects you*

Thats why I said, if you’ve issues with men having access to women’s spaces then it’s the Equalities Act which you should take issue with, not the GRR bill.

That’s why I said that very few people in Scotland understand what the GRR bill did and didn’t do.   

*the fact that there seem to be very few cases of men gaining access to women only spaces for nefarious reasons suggests that the real scale of any problem is relatively slight and where it does happen, it’s for genuine reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alibi said:

Oh, and I note that you didn't answer my question in my final paragraph.  Quelle surprise.  

As I've already mentioned, it wasn't worthy of a response.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aaid said:

As I've already mentioned, it wasn't worthy of a response.  

Seriously?  That question is key to the whole debate, and you say it's not worthy of a response.  of course Nicola Sturgeon has pulled the rug from under you, tying herself in knots in the process.  it's a simple question and only requires a Yes or No answer.  You know, a bit like a referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can any of the scientists on here classify all humans into 2 taxonomies based on whatever criteria?

Parents who adopt aren't "really" parents but it doesn't get all this rigmarole around it and biological absolutism, which doesn't even exist anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alibi said:

Seriously?  That question is key to the whole debate, and you say it's not worthy of a response.  of course Nicola Sturgeon has pulled the rug from under you, tying herself in knots in the process.  it's a simple question and only requires a Yes or No answer.  You know, a bit like a referendum.

That you think that’s such a gotcha question only betrays your ignorance.  In fact it’s not a Yes or No answer at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, aaid said:

That you think that’s such a gotcha question only betrays your ignorance.  In fact it’s not a Yes or No answer at all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, aaid said:

I will make this clear.

The reasons why “men” are given access to “women-only” spaces is because the Equality Act 2010 states that transgender is a protected characteristic and so it would be illegal to discriminate against someone because of that.

There are exceptions in the act which state that service providers may discriminate against people if it can be proved that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.   However lots of service providers may choose to admit transgender women on their own discretion.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination#:~:text=The Equality Act 2010 says,process to reassign your sex.

This article outlines what the Equalities Commission says about transgender rights under the Equalities Act.   There’s a few thing that are important.  The first one is that someone does not have to have a GR certificate, in fact they do not need to have started the process of obtaining one.  They don’t need to have gone through any sort of medical or surgical procedures.  In fact, all they have to do is give a declaration, self-id if you like.

I’ll point this out again, having a GRC makes no difference.   All the horrible things that people said would happened if Scotland passed the GRR bill are actually happening now, children are being raped, there was another case last week.  Why would some predatory male need to go through the shortened process that the GRR bill would provide you with a GRC, when having a GRC makes no difference, all you have to do is pretend to live your life as a woman and the Equalities Act protects you*

Thats why I said, if you’ve issues with men having access to women’s spaces then it’s the Equalities Act which you should take issue with, not the GRR bill.

That’s why I said that very few people in Scotland understand what the GRR bill did and didn’t do.   

*the fact that there seem to be very few cases of men gaining access to women only spaces for nefarious reasons suggests that the real scale of any problem is relatively slight and where it does happen, it’s for genuine reasons. 

This should be a pinned post somewhere, albeit maybe on the transgender thread.

People are continually blaming the Scottish government for things already in the Equalities Act.

The power of the unionist media, constantly framing and inflaming the debate to have that precise effect.

Edited by exile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2023 at 5:34 PM, Alibi said:

For clarity, do you personally believe that transwomen are actually women?  Yes or no? Can you bring yourself to disassociate yourself from the views of many of the SNP leadership on this one and abide by scientific reality?

I think it's a difficult question for many people to answer. But maybe the framing of the question is the problem. I have thought about it this way.

Is it true to say that an adoptive other is a mother? You could say yes, in the sense an adoptive mother is one kind of mother. Not a biological one, but a legally recognised one. And a piece of paper says she's a mother - the mother.

We do add 'adoptive' in appropriate contexts to clarify. (Just like we add 'trans', in appropriate contexts, to clarify). But mostly, we just accept 'mother' with no questions asked.  People don't go around badgering adoptive mothers and taunting them "you're not a real mother" or demanding that people answer "is she a real mother, yes or no?" allowing no room to say, "she's an adoptive mother and that's one kind of mother and that's all that matters".

I'm not saying it's an exact parallel. And I'm just talking about the use of language, not the physical situation.

But with a bit of empathy with mothers, of all kinds, we get by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, exile said:

I think it's a difficult question for many people to answer. But maybe the framing of the question is the problem. I have thought about it this way.

Is it true to say that an adoptive other is a mother? You could say yes, in the sense an adoptive mother is one kind of mother. Not a biological one, but a legally recognised one. And a piece of paper says she's a mother - the mother.

We do add 'adoptive' in appropriate contexts to clarify. (Just like we add 'trans', in appropriate contexts, to clarify). But mostly, we just accept 'mother' with no questions asked.  People don't go around badgering adoptive mothers and taunting them "you're not a real mother" or demanding that people answer "is she a real mother, yes or no?" allowing no room to say, "she's an adoptive mother and that's one kind of mother and that's all that matters".

I'm not saying it's an exact parallel. And I'm just talking about the use of language, not the physical situation.

But with a bit of empathy with mothers, of all kinds, we get by.

Unfortunately with the issue being political now it’s a question that’s coming up because in some circles you’re a bigot or not enlightened if you don’t think a transwomen is a women, why exactly this is being pushed by a very small minority to the detriment of actual trans people is anyone’s guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, phart said:

Can any of the scientists on here classify all humans into 2 taxonomies based on whatever criteria?

Parents who adopt aren't "really" parents but it doesn't get all this rigmarole around it and biological absolutism, which doesn't even exist anyway.

 

Have you ever read Berkeley?  It's a bit like the argument you put forth on this.  A philosophical argument that literally wouldn't recognize a brick wall if it saw one.

We could argue the abstract of everything beyond our own imagined realities, I do grant this.

However this is a philosophical not scientific thing unless I am losing my marbles.  Science relies on facts, male and female do exist in our scientific understanding barring rare abnormality.  Of course the abnormality exist.  The idea of normality itself is questionable on one level but not sure how helpful it is in this debate.

Gender is clearly and encouragingly understood as a human creation. sex is also real and has consequences beyond biological essentialism or some other gibberish expoused. Particuarly in health, sport, discrimination and even nightclubs still in today's world.  It's mad this has to be said. Whether the whole trans thing has a material impact on any of these is another matter but it's clear difference exist. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, exile said:

I think it's a difficult question for many people to answer. But maybe the framing of the question is the problem. I have thought about it this way.

Is it true to say that an adoptive other is a mother? You could say yes, in the sense an adoptive mother is one kind of mother. Not a biological one, but a legally recognised one. And a piece of paper says she's a mother - the mother.

We do add 'adoptive' in appropriate contexts to clarify. (Just like we add 'trans', in appropriate contexts, to clarify). But mostly, we just accept 'mother' with no questions asked.  People don't go around badgering adoptive mothers and taunting them "you're not a real mother" or demanding that people answer "is she a real mother, yes or no?" allowing no room to say, "she's an adoptive mother and that's one kind of mother and that's all that matters".

I'm not saying it's an exact parallel. And I'm just talking about the use of language, not the physical situation.

But with a bit of empathy with mothers, of all kinds, we get by.

I am empathetic about the situation too but no random description of a mother is competing in sports against real mothers are they?  

It's not analagous.  

Im not throwing the whole point out but there's drawbacks to this comparison, isn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alibi said:

Seriously?  That question is key to the whole debate, and you say it's not worthy of a response.  of course Nicola Sturgeon has pulled the rug from under you, tying herself in knots in the process.  it's a simple question and only requires a Yes or No answer.  You know, a bit like a referendum.

The answer is obviously no but we've wrapped ourselves in knots.

Noone thinks otherwise unless theyre using language differently.

I'd rather they looked at improving elderly care and collect the bins to be honest than spend any more time on this though never mind a referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PapofGlencoe said:

Have you ever read Berkeley?  It's a bit like the argument you put forth on this.  A philosophical argument that literally wouldn't recognize a brick wall if it saw one.

We could argue the abstract of everything beyond our own imagined realities, I do grant this.

However this is a philosophical not scientific thing unless I am losing my marbles.  Science relies on facts, male and female do exist in our scientific understanding barring rare abnormality.  Of course the abnormality exist.  The idea of normality itself is questionable on one level but not sure how helpful it is in this debate.

Gender is clearly and encouragingly understood as a human creation. sex is also real and has consequences beyond biological essentialism or some other gibberish expoused. Particuarly in health, sport, discrimination and even nightclubs still in today's world.  It's mad this has to be said. Whether the whole trans thing has a material impact on any of these is another matter but it's clear difference exist. 

 

I have no idea about anything in your first paragraph. I asked a question I know no one here will be able to answer. Then make a point about how biological absolutism only gets it's zealots in certain circumstances.

For instance parenthood is much more clearly biologically delineated in a binary fashion than say sex which get's blurred around the edges.

It works both ways the zealotry. No one is labelled a bigot for saying adoptive parents aren't "really" parents, and no one spends hours writing citing biology papers they don't understand saying they aren't "really" parents.

Philosophy and science are inextricably linked by the way. My own fields used to be called natural philosophers before the specilaisation of the sciences created more and more subjects.

If you go further back in time on the board you'll see I wrote paragraph after paragraph on the problems regarding female sports and transgender woman. On how androgens and other factors are causing huge advantages. I'm not talking about the details though. I'm talking about how it's being turned into this culture war debate. Polarising and radiacalising both sides of the debate and how I feel about that.

Anyway too early for me. I just get annoyed i let myself get dragged into discussing it, but that's the insidious nature of culture wars.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I am empathetic about the situation too but no random description of a mother is competing in sports against real mothers are they?  

It's not analagous.  

Im not throwing the whole point out but there's drawbacks to this comparison, isn't there.

The analogy is in the use of language and how one thing, suitably qualified, can be a subset of a larger category. In that situation, there is not necessarily a single straight unambiguous answer to the yes/no question, as some people demand there to be.

As I said my point is not about the physical situation (or the political situation) - that has been done to death.

Edited by exile
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...



×
×
  • Create New...