Scottish survey on gender recognition bill update

Careful Chewbacca you don't want to come across as patronising!!

Can they also remember that the whole of the UK is observing what legislation is passed in Scotland because it will soon be mooted in the rest of the country - and the whole world. There is more gender recognition propaganda coming from south of the border than there is from Scottish sources, it is just that Holyrood has been more pro-active in getting legislation onto the table than Westminster. They could also - if they are not too thirled to the heavy-duty lobbying of Stonewall and others - be pro-active in applying good old common sense.

This survey shows that grass-roots opinion is not the same as official policy. Our representatives in Parliament - Westminster or Holyrood - are supposed to take note of their constituents views and vote for what is right for ALL of them. Women are half those constituents.

Careful Chewbacca you don't want to come across as patronising!!

Don't give a toss about that Smileless; this subject is far too important and imperative to be derailed by silliness like that.

Sorry, volver, but this time I disagree with you. I think we need all the help and support we can get, and don't feel patronised at all by those who feel sorry for us! It is in their interest as well as ours that this is sat on as firmly as possible. People from furth of Scotland were invited to take part in the consultation too. Surely we would be supporting them if this was happening the other way round, and not at all in a patronising way.

How anyone can square this proposed change in law with the rights of others such as this teenage girl is beyond me. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61523291

Women in Scotland are being thrown under the bus by a patriarchal movement that wants all the power and which includes some women who have failed to understand the issue. Before anyone asks, yes, I’ve been protesting about this for years now, since it first hit the news.

mostly not interested, one way or the other, because the issue had never affected their lives. And by the time the issue has affected their lives, it will be far too late to do anything about it. It's already got this far because women "fell asleep at the wheel;" we didn't think that Stonewall meant us any harm, they were just a kindly charity ensuring that the gay community had a voice; what harm could they do? Now we know. And it's taking strong women like Maya Forstater, Alison Bailey, Kath Stock to put their lives in the spotlight to try and wrestle back some of those rights that weve already lost - but never actually saw slipping away.....

I consciously stay out of the trans debates because I have no strong feelings about it. I realise that this approach makes me a traitor to my sex in the minds of some. People are allowed to disagree and the people who feel strongly about this subject need to make their views known, of course they do.

But I will not sit by and have sanctimonious women who don't live here tell me that they are sorry for me and that they're glad they're not living in Scotland.

Another here feeling very sorry for women in Scotland, especially the rape and domestic violence victims who are bearing the brunt of this nonsense

Strangely, Neither Rape Crisis nor Women's Aid are opposed to the new legislation. I spent 18.5 years as a WA worker and can testify that we were used to assisting victims, classed as 'Not Suitable for Refuge'. This was usually because they were alcoholic or drug dependent, or had older male children with them, though in one instance the abused woman had a criminal record for 'Fire Raising'. These women were given the full range of Support, Advice and Counselling Services but referred elsewhere (often to Council's homeless person's accommodation) for a safe place to stay, thus ensuring the safety of Families currently in refuges. We also had to deal with Lesbian Couples who both presented saying they had been abused by their partner. NB no one can demand to be admitted to refuge - the reality is that refuge spaces are in short supply, often full and alternatives have to be found to ensure victims safety. Almost all victims of DV have been abused by Men who identify, strongly as Male.

As to prisons - in the vast majority of incidences of violence, abuse or rape in prison the perpetrator and the victim are both male, young men in Men's prisons being most at risk. Surely this is the fault of the prison system, which should be ensuring the safety of all prisoners?

The big problem in our society is male violence. Surely every one of us knows personally of many instances of this. I have yet to see any reports of crimes against women perpetrated by transmen reported in our local paper - which reports 3 to 4 court reports of male violence against women every week. When I have asked anti Transrights people for documented reports they cannot come up with any of which they have personal knowledge, only the same few ( usually USA) reports of incidents.

I wish the fervour currently being directed against trans people would instead be directed to the real big common threat that is male violence towards women.

I think this currently aggressive TRA lobby are displaying male aggression to women.
PS I don't feel patronised on this thread. The posts are supportive and well informed.

I include transwomen in the category of Male. No males in womens spaces. You cant change sex.

I have no issue with transmen in womens prisons, or did you mean something different.

I strongly disagree that there is any "fervour currently being directed against trans people" Granny23. The fervour that is seen is against trans activists who are doing as much if not more harm to their fellow transmen and transwomen as they are to women.

I do have strong feelings about it volver, that said I wouldn't be rude and accuse you of being a traitor to your sex, even though your rudeness accuses me of being patronising and sanctimonious.

I have no problem with men who truly believe that they should have been born female and who truly do live, act and react as though they are women (or vice versa). That includes the majority, who live blameless lives among us, stay out of the controversies engineered by Stonewall, and are not being well served by the aggressive tactics of some activists. There have been individuals who lived like this throughout history.

I do have a problem with men who are still male in body, hormone production, heterosexual orientation and physical sexual reactions to the sight of women's bodies, but who, if this legislation goes through as it is planned, will be eligible to enter the communal changing room of a women's clothes shop and watch "other women" taking off their clothes without the other women being able to object because the trans woman is a woman too . Trans activists say that a lesbian could do the same, but that is like saying "There are man-eating sharks in the sea, so we shouldn't be worrying about dumping all our waste into it, even if some of it is poisonous and will kill wildlife"

I have a problem with violence to women by trans women being recorded as a female crime, when in fact it is by "a man who self-identifies as a woman but who still has male equipment and/or hormones and carries the same propensity for anti-woman violence as he had before he self-identified" thus skewing the statistics.

I have a problem (having had difficulties enough researching my family history, even without this complication) with people who have transitioned being able to completely obliterate the fact that they were registered in one sex and appear in later records and certificates as another. This could also cause problems if a person is being traced for some legal reason, or because they have done something that was not legal. I would hope that some kind of "audit trail" is left to indicate what was, after all, registered as a legal fact before the individual transitioned.

I am not happy, either, with the eagerness of gender therapy experts to prescribe puberty-delaying drugs, or hormone-stimulating drugs which are intended for people whose natural hormones haven't got into action by their mid-teens, not for prepubertal children. Once children are set on a course of action that includes such medication, they are almost certain to stay on that course into adulthood, even though their natural development into fully sexual adults may have made them perfect content (or very happy!) as their natal sex. Disillusioned and detransitioned adults are on record as regretting their sterility as a result of pubertal delaying drugs, or their unreversible body surgery.

These effects of transition need to be addressed before legislation on the subject is set into law and difficult to alter.

It would have been clearer and more grammatical had I written " their natural development into fully sexual adults could have made them . . " rather than "may have made them"

The big problem in our society is male violence. Surely every one of us knows personally of many instances of this. I have yet to see any reports of crimes against women perpetrated by transmen reported in our local paper - which reports 3 to 4 court reports of male violence against women every week. When I have asked anti Transrights people for documented reports they cannot come up with any of which they have personal knowledge, only the same few ( usually USA) reports of incidents.

A few points here. Firstly yes, nobody disputes that the big problem is male violence, whether against other males or agasints females. Violence by men against transwomen is male on male violence, as is most booze-fuelled street fighting. Domestic violence works both ways, but statistically is far more likely to be male on female, as is sexual violence and rape. The point is that in all cases, it is men who are much more likely to be the perpetrators, whoever the victim is. This is the reason why feminists* want to protect female-only spaces.

*as opposed to 'anti trans-rights people', which is a derogatory and inaccurate description of those who have no problem with transpeople in general, but do object to TRAs pushing to legalise the invasion of female spaces and the erosion of the language to eradicate women.

Of course it is unlikely that there will be many reports of violence against women by transmen. This would be female on female violence, and as with all such crime it is rare. Also, as reporters are now obliged to refer to transpeople by their 'gender', it is difficult for them to report the sex of the perpetrators (which 'conveniently' hides the true nature of such crimes) so as well as being rare, if transmen attacks on women did^ occur, they would not be reported in such a way as to make it clear that this is what was happening.

Attacks by transwomen on female victims are often only known about when reporters use photographs of the perpetrators next to their female-sounding names, presumably acts of frustration because they can't call the bearded, balding gruff-voiced rapist a man.

As to prisons - in the vast majority of incidences of violence, abuse or rape in prison the perpetrator and the victim are both male, young men in Men's prisons being most at risk. Surely this is the fault of the prison system, which should be ensuring the safety of all prisoners?

Surely the fact that most violence is male on male should not mean that we 'level the playing field' by encouraging male on female violence such as that perpetrated on women by many male prisoners who discover their feminine side after being sentenced for sex offences and insist on being housed in female prisons? I agree that all violence in prison is the fault (and responsibility) of the prison system, but I don't know what that has to do with the issue of transwomen being housed in female jails and posing a risk to the women in there. That is their responsibility too, surely?

Good posts Elegran and Doodledog.

The removal of the medical diagnosis means there is no safeguarding measure. All checks and balances are removed. Males who say they are women have actually already claimed their right to join women’s sports teams , be housed in women’s prisons. … and more.
The Scottish Government has not addressed issues raised by women’s groups and has ignored the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s advice to give the matter more consideration into the effect the reform will have. The government also broke its election manifesto pledge to work with women’s groups to look for the best way to reform the legislation. It is astounding that the Scottish Government continues to claim that there is no downside to this proposal.

That may change if they really read the replies to the survey that has just been conducted, and apply what was learnt from it to the updating to the legislation that they have just started considering.
We can all write to our MSPs, or email them, to give them our opinion.

Please do not assume that everyone who is pro trans or agree that trans women are women and trans men are men would be in the 38%

I have seen the pros and cons of such a move discussed widely.

The emphasis being quite often my own stance that we must have protections in place for both women and trans people to ensure they recieve the correct care throughout transition.

A relative minority ansered this survey, far far less than even the estimated 1% of society that the proposed changes might "benefit" if they all agreed with them.

As usual, there are sensible middle grounds and ways forward that would ensure the protection of everyones rights going forward...

However, as I have been told on these threads the onus is on trans people and their allies to find those sensible ways forward and those who are apposed to the idea that trans people are the gender they claim to be should not have to make allowances (despite being the ones with the issue).... Well, I can't see the point of discussing this further as there is no room here to actually do so.

Women in Ireland have already been thrown under the bus. Try Googling Barbie Kardashian.

I agree it is astounding Cathymac and very concerning that the Scottish Government appears to be breaking its election manifesto with regard to this issue.

We can only hope Elegran as well as contacting our MSP's.

As usual, there are sensible middle grounds and ways forward that would ensure the protection of everyones rights going forward...

What are these 'sensible middle grounds'? And please don't say that you have suggested them before, because as far as I am concerned there has not been anything approaching a consensus when it comes to women's rights to dignity, safety and fairness on this issue.

And that consensus is the first thing that needs to be addressed Doodledog.

Agreed, Smileless.

Unfortunately, whereas I for one am willing to listen to anything suggested, I can't see how there can be a compromise when women want safety, dignity and fairness, and TRAs want men to be able to access female spaces, whether the women in them are undressed, ill or otherwise vulnerable, to 'compete' against us in sport, so that in many cases women's chances of winning are negligible, and to alter the language so that women cease to exist as a sex-class.

So long as TRAs want these things to be inalienable 'rights', based on a 'feeling' that they are the wrong sex - and that this feeling is, in itself, based on the notion that sex and gender stereotypes are linked - then I really can't see that compromise is possible.

What are women meant to concede? The right to sex-based rights and considerations? The right to compete fairly in sport? The right to be safe in jail or hospital? The right to use language in a way that recognises women, and female roles?

Maybe if the TRAs made some suggestions, it would be easier to see what is possible; but so far the compromise has all been expected to come from one side. We are already women. It is we who are expected to make concessions to men who want to join us, but they want everything to be on their terms, with No Debate.

Unfortunately your third paragraph sums up what women are being expected to concede, and I'm struggling to believe that this could be a possibility Doodledog but it certainly looks that way.