can we discuss feminism please

The article that you object to Trisher was written by someone who is an experienced barrister who specialises In Employment and Discrimination. I would imagine that this author has checked her facts and knows her stuff. Maybe its not biased at all. Maybe it is based on her experience, observation and knowledge.

If there is one thng barristers are good at it is presenting facts with bias, in fact it's their job. They present things in the best light for their client. Even barristers can be biased. As I said- no mention of the Disabled Student Service at Edinburgh or of the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion programme which covers all the policies alleged not to be provided. www.ed.ac.uk/equality-diversity/about/outcomes
Then Rainbow laces and rainbow lanyards have to be bought and handed around. Well why not? It raises LGBQT awareness.
As I said it smacks of homophobia

You may have a point there Trisher but there are two sides to every argument. Just because someone disagrees with an argument doesn't make the facts wrong or the writer transphobic. A barrister would be a fool to make statements that are not true, knowing the implications. I would imagine people opposing the argument presented in the article would use carefully selected facts in a response.

trisher

petunia were the service users permited to choose their contact with the service on any other grounds? For example if someone said they didn't like a particular woman would they automatically be moved to someone else, or would the service be withdrawn?

I worked in the male violence against women and children field for 40 years providing practical and emotional support. I can confirm that the policy was that if a woman, young person or child did not want a service from a particular member of staff or volunteer that was accepted without question and another was found.
I support that policy because to do otherwise is counter productive and to withdraw the service can be experienced as a further form of abuse which can drive a woman back to the abusive man.

It would be an interesting exercise to have a poll on Gransnet about bra fitting...who would you not want to do it?
E.g. I would not want any of my
female/male neighbours
my in-laws
my daughters/sons in-laws
former colleagues
former students (I was a trainer)
Thinking this through, I would rather the woman was unknown to me.
I would not accept anyone other than a woman (biological).

Have any Scottish grans been following the Progress of the Hate Crime bill in the NEC?

It could become a crime to use the term Adult Human Female, as this could be seen as stirring up hatred. This could also apply in the home, so will effectively prevent women from even discussing the way they are being erased.

In similar nonsense, people will be allowed to self-ID as black or disabled, in order to be considered for one of the 4 protected seats available to each group.

It’s barmy. I suspect that this might be to attract young voters who are too naive to understand the implications of this sort of thing. They are statistically more likely to vote for independence, and Nicola Sturgeon has the Alec Salmond allegations hanging over her.

Why people aren’t up in arms about all of this is beyond my comprehension.

Doodledog

Have any Scottish grans been following the Progress of the Hate Crime bill in the NEC?

It could become a crime to use the term Adult Human Female, as this could be seen as stirring up hatred. This could also apply in the home, so will effectively prevent women from even discussing the way they are being erased.

In similar nonsense, people will be allowed to self-ID as black or disabled, in order to be considered for one of the 4 protected seats available to each group.

It’s barmy. I suspect that this might be to attract young voters who are too naive to understand the implications of this sort of thing. They are statistically more likely to vote for independence, and Nicola Sturgeon has the Alec Salmond allegations hanging over her.

Why people aren’t up in arms about all of this is beyond my comprehension.

I have been following it and am deeply concerned and alarmed about the implication for women’s and children’s rights.
The Equalities Act 2010 has, as one of the protected characteristics, ‘belief’ along with ‘religion’.
My belief is that you can’t change sex and science supports that. This means I do not accept that biological women, and men who feel they are women, are the same. If this Hate Crime Bill is made law in Scotland, my understanding is that I could be prosecuted for making such statements.
The public seem unaware of the implications for women and children’s rights and those of us who are aware of the implications will be silenced. I believe that is the the main ‘hidden’ purpose, of the Bill.
The Scottish National Party elected members will have an opportunity at stage 3 of the Bill to make clear to the public where they stand on this and I hope they go with their conscience.
The newly formed Independence for Scotland Party is an alternative for those who support independence and their policies about this are the same as mine. They have produced an excellent video, has anyone seen it? I don’t think I can post the link here, can I?
Joanna Cherry QC was the SNP Justice Minister in Westminster and Nicola Sturgeon sacked her so she is now a back bencher. JC has had to have police protection in the past due to threats on her life because she champions women’s rights. Apparently, she had to be taken to a safe place again at the weekend.
I would urge those who live in other parts of the UK who share my views to keep a close eye on what happens with the proposed Hate Crimes Bill and prepare.

petunia

You may have a point there Trisher but there are two sides to every argument. Just because someone disagrees with an argument doesn't make the facts wrong or the writer transphobic. A barrister would be a fool to make statements that are not true, knowing the implications. I would imagine people opposing the argument presented in the article would use carefully selected facts in a response.

Perhaps, however I consider it not only inconsiderate and biased but possibly really damaging to the University targeted, and prospective students. who reading that article might assume they would not be treated properly because there was no disability policy or equality policy, when in fact entirely the opposite is true. The two issues have been moved on from policies into embedded organisations. Which of course leads on to the reason for a Trans policy and training, because the issue is still a recent development which many (as the posts on this thread illustrate) misunderstand and struggle with. In years to come trans issues may well become part of the Equalities service. Such articles are dangerous and inflammatory.

MBHP1 You are entitled to believe what you like, you have no right to inflict those beliefs onto other people. So just as a Muslim or Jewish person cannot be compelled to attend a Christian service or take part in any activity which might conflict with their religious beliefs you cannot call a transwoman "he" because of your beliefs.
It seems to me rather a conflict of ideas to post about someone forced into hiding by hate speech and then oppose a Hate Crime Bill

She was threatened by a man trisher. Stating that you cant change sex is not hate speech, it's the truth. And a statement made by many many transwomen.

Galaxy I don't see who made the threat matters. If Hate Crime was a legal issue he wouldn't be able to make such threats. You can say what you believe, that doesn't mean you can target other people because of your beliefs. I may be an evangelical Christian, that does not give me the right to refuse to recognise Muslims, or to insist that their first name be referred to as their Christian name.

A more accurate comparison is an evangelical Christian insisting that we all say we believe in God. I dont believe you can change sex in the same way I dont believe in God. Neither of these views are hate speech.
I am now on two different threads arguing for different sides on the free speech debate which is confusing even for me

The rights for many categories of humans have in the past been hard fought .
What does feminism mean today? I don’t think it is clear anymore, perhaps the hard battles have been won, so now it is reduced to fighting for the ‘correct terminologies’ & maybe we ‘Grannies’ cannot get too stewed up about that.

It's really not about terminology, Bridgeit. It is about men (full-bodied) being able to shower next to women because they self-id as 'female'.

It is about the notion of femaleness being erased, so women become 'non-men' whilst men retain their own sex and rights.

It is about all-female shortlists becoming meaningless, and about men competing with women in sport (and potentially injuring them in the process).

It is about women being imprisoned alongside full-bodied men, not being allowed to change or have intimate medical procedures carried out in female-only environments, and many more things besides.

The fact that it could become a crime even to discuss these things is very worrying, and detrimental to the cause of misgendered people as well as women.

I have no issue with trans rights - transmen and transwomen's rights are human rights, and should be protected in the same way as the rights of the rest of the population. Where I part company is that I do not support this at the expense of women's rights to exist as a sex, and I do not support the silencing of anyone who disagrees.

Galaxy that's not quite true (as I think you know). Your belief in anything can remain. You simply can't call people what you wish, but comply with their request to be called what they believe they are.
It could also be compared with the Mrs/Miss/Ms debate which some people thought unnecessary but others thought of vital importance and wanted the right to choose. Should those who think it's a waste of time be allowed to use the one they believe is appropriate and ignore someone's preference?

Doodledog the insistance on maaking this only an issue about transwomen is just wrong. There are transmen and binary people who are deeply affected by this issue as well. Ignoring them is not acceptable.

That is what I said Doodledog?

On a thread about feminism, I am speaking as a feminist about the way in which this issue affects female people, but even then, I was careful to say that transmen AND transwomen's rights are human rights. I hereby include non-binary people in this statement for the record.

You are deliberately picking on one part of what I have said to discredit the rest, whilst ignoring the thrust of the argument. It is sophistry. Please stop it.

Bridgeit

That is what I said Doodledog?

Is it? I read your post as saying that there was nothing left to fight for apart from terminology, which isn't worth getting 'stewed up' about.

Sorry if I have misunderstood, but I can't honestly see a different meaning in what you said.

You comment is untrue & unpleasant .

It's not sophistry. It's demonstrating the weakness of the argument.
If you refuse to recognise a change of sex, or the right of the person to believe they have changed gender then you condemn women who do not want to be women to remain in a tortured situation and deny them the pronoun and gender they want. How is that feminism? You deny women who want to be non-binary the right to legally exist at all, some of them you would define as women. How is that feminism?

I'm not condemning anyone to anything. I recognise the change of gender, but not the change of sex, which is my point, and in any case, your pointing out that I didn't include non-binary people in my post does not weaken my argument, which still stands.

It is feminism because women are threatened with being subsumed into a 'non-male' class. I find this a very worrying trend, and had hoped it would die along with Trump and his Gileadian policies, but Biden has bought in to it too.

If feminists don't stand up for the rights of their sex, who will?

Bridgeit, was that directed at me?

How exactly am I "being consumed into a non-male sex" Doodledog?
I see no danger in the person standing next to me being either a natal women or a trans woman? Or for that matter the man standing beside me being trans or natal. Or for them to be non-binary.
The biggest problem for me is non-binary people using the pronoun "they" I read a story recently with a non-binary person as main character and had trouble at one point becase I thought there were two of them.

We all are, if legislation like this goes through. Men stay men, and 'women' includes anyone who self-defines as such. I know that women can transition to men, but that happens very rarely, and in any case, natal women are far less of a threat to men in pretty much any situation than natal men are to women.

If anyone can self-id as female, then female shortlists, and all the things in my earlier post that I'm not typing out again will be impossible. There will be men, and 'those who identify as female', even though those not born female need not have transitioned and will not have had a background that has been the same as the actual women for whom an all-female shortlist was deemed necessary.

I struggled a bit with using 'they' for a while, but as it is becoming more commonplace, I am getting used to it and learning not to see it as plural or ungrammatical. It's not the terminology that worries me, though - it is the implications of sex and gender being conflated with all that this entails.

The rainbow is now used as a symbol for supporting the NHS, is it not?
As a longtime supporter of Gay rights I pointed out to my trade Union what the rainbow meant to me and was informed that was ‘old hat’. Is it not the trans symbol the ping, blue and white rainbow that is being referred to?
Please don’t confuse my support for Gay rights with my other views as many gay people are on same page as me.