Scottish survey on gender recognition bill update

I can’t speak for anyone else but I am not remotely interested in pre-judging yours or others’ responses. I respond to what I see. It may, I suppose, be a contradiction of what I’ve just said to say that you seem to have cast yourself as a victim on this thread, though.

I see women’s spaces as important, yes. But so is the whole notion of gender, IMO. I can’t rank order them in significance, as I see them as linked. The idea that there is a ‘gender’ that someone can become, and that simply saying it is so means that someone of one sex is of the other is something I find disturbing, particularly given the political dimension that these ideas have acquired.

Well that's your opinion. We may not all share it.

If it's only hectoring questions you don't answer, then why not answer then why not answer all 3 of Doodledog's as none of them were asked in a brusque or bullying way?

That's a complete misreading of what I said Doodledog .

Also, I don't answer hectoring questions. But I'll answer this one.

If you don’t see any of this as important for women’s rights, why not?
I have repeatedly said on this thread that I think the question of single sex spaces etc needs to be addressed. I will assume you have missed that. Or, perhaps I should assume that you don't think that is enough, that its not strong enough, That I don't understand the situation? I don't think it advances women's rights one iota to extend the issues that occur as a result of aggressive TRA's to be considered as a full-on assault on women's rights. I don't think calling leading female politicians "paid up members of the patriarchy" does any good at all.

But anything I say will be interpreted as anti-women, anti-feminist, and potentially telling women to shut up. In fact, it already has.

Heigh ho.

volver

I was going to go back through the thread, to find examples to answer Smileless2012's question, but what's the point?

There is no arguing, is there? There is no disagreeing?

Saying you feel sorry for the women of Scotland, who apparently don't know how awful things are in their country, that's not patronising, apparently.

But disagreeing with people who just don't have any time for what you're saying? That's just sneering and being snide.

I’m not aware that you have made any sort of case for anything other than that you don’t approve of people’s reasons for choosing who to vote for, that you consider there to be a ‘sisterhood’ of posters who are unconsidered and hysterical in their thinking, and that any expression of solidarity with women in Scotland is patronising. Have you disagreed with any of the points on this thread?

What do you think about gender as a concept? How do you feel about politicians who refuse to say what a woman is when asked directly? If you don’t see any of this as important for women’s rights, why not?

I would guess from seeing the Ricky Gervais clips that he is someone who has been following the debate closely, there are some quite obscure references in there that only someone familiar with what's going on would make.

Just me then it looks that way doesn't it.

25Avalon

Anybody seen or heard the Ricky Gervais ‘jokes’ onNetflix?

Yes, I have.

Just me then. Must be a delicate little flower. And the "patroniser" doesn't get to decide how the "patronisee" feels.

And as I have already posted, people are entitled to vote however they choose. If anyone male or female, chooses not to vote Labour for that reason, that's up to them isn't it.

I see you've got it volver . Several posters from Scotland have stated on this thread that they didn't find my comment patronising because it wasn't.

Disagreeing with people isn't sneering and being snide, but the way that disagreement is articulated can, and has been.

On another thread, somebody has just said they would never vote Labour because she's a woman and Starmer thinks she doesn't exist.

I was going to go back through the thread, to find examples to answer Smileless2012's question, but what's the point?

There is no arguing, is there? There is no disagreeing?

Saying you feel sorry for the women of Scotland, who apparently don't know how awful things are in their country, that's not patronising, apparently.

But disagreeing with people who just don't have any time for what you're saying? That's just sneering and being snide.

volver

^The trouble is, there only seems to be one party who will speak the truth on this matter, even though they are incapable of doing so about anything else.^

So. Do I read this as you would rather have a party of lying charlatans in power, people in thrall to the owners of the right wing media and goodness knows what else, because they mouth the things you want to hear about women.

Rather than any of the other parties who don't say what you want to hear about women but are far more likely to implement policies that make women's lives better.

Its self indulgent.

There, I said it. Hard hat on. Back to the beer.

I don't know. I haven't decided what to do, and will have a while to think about it.

I'm not interested in people 'mouthing things I want to hear' though, and as I said, I'm sick of snide digs like that, so I'm out of this thread until someone responds to something I have said, rather than making unpleasant insinuations.

I am happy to discuss the issue of gender, but not to waste time responding to insults.

I don't agree that accusing posters of being patronising and sanctimonious is trying to find middle ground volver and you have been sneering at people.

Not sure any of your views have been misrepresented but if so, perhaps you could give examples. It is you who appears to be unable to concede that the arguments put forward that don't agree with yours, are valid. You simply dismiss them and accuse those who present them of hysteria.

I guess I might be accused of being in that 2%. I have asked questions. I have corrected things that were posted that were incorrect. I have tried to find common ground in the discussion about safe, single sex places. I have made what I thought was an agreeable statement about not taking trans-rights too far in medical situations.

And in return? My views misrepresented, told I’m supercilious, told I’m sneering at people.

This debate will never progress until people on both sides concede that the other side has a valid argument, and until people stop playing the victim that nobody can question.

The vast majority on this thread, I'd say 98% respect one another's contributions Doodledog. As for those who bat the sensible, informed and mature posts back with their supercilious retorts, you always get one or two in the playground who are unable to play well with others and are unwilling or unable to take part in debate.

I will vote Labour pretty much whatever happens, well unless they decide that Johnson should be welcomed into the fold I do have my limits, but people vote or dont vote for all sorts of reasons, and getting cross will have no impact on that, if Labour do choose this as the hill they want to die on, well I cant imagine it will go well. I think there is a view in the Labour party that they just need to make the voters think like them (on this and many other issues) it's not a strategy that I would rely on.

Personally, I don't think I have ever "belittled the ideas of politicians and posters who disagree with the ideas of the ones shouting loudest" and I do try not to be confused by the .

The most confusing misinformation of all is the various meanings of "sex" and "gender". If everyone had the same concept of what those two words meant, we would understand one another a lot better. The same is true of the relationship between the terms "male and female" and "men and women". They are not identical, as human beings, mice, elephants, sticklebacks, holly trees, and plumbing fittings can be male or female, but only adult humans can be men or women. An adult male human being is male, and an adult female human is a female. An adult human male is NOT a woman, and an adult human female is NOT a man. Their wish to be of the opposite sex may cause them to live and act as though they are, but they can no more become the opposite sex than a pig can fly, or E not equal MC squared.

supercilious retorts.

Or, as they are known in other circles, "valid questions and facts."

Too supercilious? Well tough.

The trouble is, there only seems to be one party who will speak the truth on this matter, even though they are incapable of doing so about anything else.

So. Do I read this as you would rather have a party of lying charlatans in power, people in thrall to the owners of the right wing media and goodness knows what else, because they mouth the things you want to hear about women.

Rather than any of the other parties who don't say what you want to hear about women but are far more likely to implement policies that make women's lives better.

Its self indulgent.

There, I said it. Hard hat on. Back to the beer.

So often on these threads people try to explain their point of view, only to get patronised, insulted and sneered at. I am sick of it.

If anyone would like to discuss the issue of gender id without resorting to insults and put downs, I am very willing to listen to what they have to say, but I've had enough of wasting my time on posts that aren't going to be responded to, but simply batted back with supercilious retorts.

I agree Doodledog that the laid back attitude some have to this is indeed alarming. It's ironic isn't it that, as you say, the only party speaking the truth on this issue, can't do so on anything else.

volver there aren't enough people on these threads for the right reasons (genuine fear or concern and need for a way foward that benefits all while respecting individual rights) to make it a worthwhile discussion.

The few I would gladly discuss this with any time are sadly blinded to the issues on these threads by those genuine fears or concerns and high emotion.

If it was a discussion everyone genuinely wanted to have with those who respect the rights of trans people, they would be able to do so on a nonpersonal level from a rational approach and shut down that behaviour, when they saw it from anyone, in the interest of the wider subject.

I am afraid this is why so many won't join these threads and I will only join now in order to say this because there really isn't anything else left to throw at me anyway lol

Cheers

No one's belittled politicians volver the fact that there's been a failure of some to define what a woman is, is a statement of fact.

As for belittling posters well this thread clearly shows who is responsible for that.

What a shame Keir wont be joining you, maybe a few beers would have given him enough dutch courage to stand up for women's rights.