Scottish survey on gender recognition bill update

volver

What I mean Doodledog, is that we often see people on here saying that they will never vote for anyone who "doesn't know what a woman is". I think it has been said on this thread.

So are the people who say that just talking in shorthand? Is it valid to reduce such an important and detailed subject to "He doesn't know what a woman is". Because that is how it comes across.

Reading this thread, I surmise that we are meant to be alarmed by the stories of women being attacked, hounded, whatever by TRAs. Of course we should be alarmed by stories of women being attacked, but they are presented as proof of the fact that we have to stand up against Self ID at all costs. Consequently the threat from the TRAs is the biggest thing facing us right now. Isn't that what the stories are for? Well I'm alarmed by people who try to boil down their voting intentions to "he doesn't know what a woman is." Which, whether they like it or not, translates into "so let's allow the lying, misogynistic charlatans in again."

Yeah, and as I said, it's a dilemma. I don't know how I will vote.

I don't see it as boiling down voting intentions to 'he doesn't know what a woman is' though. I know perfectly well that they all know exactly what a woman is - it's not just the Labour Party. They are choosing to pretend otherwise, and I find that alarming, so I am considering my voting options, which is my right.

Frankly, I think that people not being alarmed by the turn that gender politics has taken is alarming. I agree with the poster who said upthread that most people she talks to don't have strong feelings one way or the other - most people probably don't, which I think is extremely worrying. I also think that a lot of people will spoil ballot papers, or vote in ways they wouldn't otherwise dream of, which is not going to bring the result that so many people really want. 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.

I won't vote Tory, ever. I have only ever voted Labour, apart from one tactical vote for the Lib Dems, which didn't work anyway, and I am still a member of the LP. If they don't sort this out though, I will resign before the next election, as I can't stay a member of a party for which I can't vote, and I know people who usually vote Lib Dem and SNP who say the same. The Greens are often the party of protest in my circle, but they are worse than Labour in this case, so what to do?

Keir? Angela? If you or your media team are reading, get your act together, and do it soon.

So - nothing to do with the gender id bill then? ( slurp )

Indeed. Available for purchase without a minor's parents having any idea what their pubescent D is doing to her body and the potential harm she may be causing.

Elegran

volver

The proposal to lower that age to 16 will mean that even more young people, with even less experience of the adult world, will take a precipitate decision that they could regret bitterly.

Given that there is no need to medical intervention, if they decide they have taken the wrong path, can't they change back?

They may well have undergone some medical intervention, if not to get the certificate, then for cosmetic "improvements", taking hormones ( prescribed or bought over the internet) to enlarge their man-boobs into a feminine bust and round-out their hips, or to make equivalent alterations to their female shape to make them look more masculine. If they are post-puberty, I don't know whether or not these changes would be reversible.

These improvements may well be made too by those younger than 16 and not yet eligible for a certificate even under the proposed alterations to the Act. Online hormone sellers may not check the age of their customers.

The younger the person, the more likely it is that large doses of strong hormones or other drugs are to interfere with the development of their sexual bodies and cause sterility. They can also cause osteopenia and osteoporosis. This is one reason why the use of puberty blockers is not approved by most paediatricians.

And all those things could happen irrespective of the change in the law.

So the whole discussion is confused and the belittling of politicians and posters who disagree with the ideas of the ones shouting loudest is unfounded.

DH is pouring the beer. Keir is not present

Even non medical interventions, such as chest binders - easily bought by pubescent girls from shops on the high street, have been proven to cause long lasting and significant harm.

I wouldn't say you've educated me volver although that did make me laugh, but you've certainly reinforced the opinions I hold.

Enjoy your beer.

volver

^The proposal to lower that age to 16 will mean that even more young people, with even less experience of the adult world, will take a precipitate decision that they could regret bitterly.^

Given that there is no need to medical intervention, if they decide they have taken the wrong path, can't they change back?

They may well have undergone some medical intervention, if not to get the certificate, then for cosmetic "improvements", taking hormones ( prescribed or bought over the internet) to enlarge their man-boobs into a feminine bust and round-out their hips, or to make equivalent alterations to their female shape to make them look more masculine. If they are post-puberty, I don't know whether or not these changes would be reversible.

These improvements may well be made too by those younger than 16 and not yet eligible for a certificate even under the proposed alterations to the Act. Online hormone sellers may not check the age of their customers.

The younger the person, the more likely it is that large doses of strong hormones or other drugs are to interfere with the development of their sexual bodies and cause sterility. They can also cause osteopenia and osteoporosis. This is one reason why the use of puberty blockers is not approved by most paediatricians.

People are entitled to vote how they wish volver, and if some decide they wont vote for a party only because they're unwilling or unable to say what a woman is, that's their choice.

Hobson's choice for me too Doodledog, having a party in government that's afraid to stand up to Stonewall and TRAs is a very frightening prospect.

There is no winning this argument.

I'm going for a beer.

But we're not paranoid, no of course not.

Paranoia now? So the women in prisons, hospitals and refuges who have been sexually assaulted by men, who claim to be women, are simply paranoid are they? Same as the women attending a meeting behind closed doors, who are besieged at all exits by transactivists who verbally and physically threaten them, simply because they don't want them to speak? And I suppose Kathleen Stock, Alison Bailey, Maya Forstater et al are all similarly paranoid too. Aye right!

You on the other hand seem to think that your seen as hating women and trying to shut them down in addition to being patronised by sanctimonious posters.

Well this is how it appears to anyone who disagrees with the sisters.

Glad to have the opportunity to educate you.

What I mean Doodledog, is that we often see people on here saying that they will never vote for anyone who "doesn't know what a woman is". I think it has been said on this thread.

So are the people who say that just talking in shorthand? Is it valid to reduce such an important and detailed subject to "He doesn't know what a woman is". Because that is how it comes across.

Reading this thread, I surmise that we are meant to be alarmed by the stories of women being attacked, hounded, whatever by TRAs. Of course we should be alarmed by stories of women being attacked, but they are presented as proof of the fact that we have to stand up against Self ID at all costs. Consequently the threat from the TRAs is the biggest thing facing us right now. Isn't that what the stories are for? Well I'm alarmed by people who try to boil down their voting intentions to "he doesn't know what a woman is." Which, whether they like it or not, translates into "so let's allow the lying, misogynistic charlatans in again."

Just because there is no need for medical intervention doesn't mean that it wont be asked for and taken in the form of medication to block puberty volver, and what damage may have been caused before a decision is taken to change back?

I'm certainly not paranoid volver but then again I haven't felt patronised on this thread. You on the other hand seem to think that your seen as hating women and trying to shut them down in addition to being patronised by sanctimonious posters.

A total demolition of their argument from what I can see Chewbacca.

volver

Ah well. One brief moment of common sense, quickly subsumed in cut and paste examples of how they're all out to get us.

Keep fighting the good fight sisters. Us quiet little mousey types will just keep quiet in case the men see us, and we'll let you look after our futures for us.

Good grief! And you say you are being patronised.

Page after page of discussion about gender identity. But apparently it can all be boiled down to the question, "What is a woman". In fact, its worth exposing the country to the worst government any of us have ever seen, because the other guy "doesn't know what a woman is".

I'm not sure what you mean by the first half of this post. Yes, there is discussion about gender identity. That is what this is about. What did you expect to see? A discussion of jam making or trombones?

As to whether it's worth exposing the country to more Tory misrule, I don't know the answer to that one. It's Hobson's choice for me. The last thing I want is to keep this lot in power, but equally, I don't want to vote for a party that won't stand up for women. Of course they all know what a woman is. The fact that they (the LP, the Greens, the Lib Dems and the SNP) pretend that it's complicated just means that they have bought into the Stonewall doctrine, and that they will allow the fear of being accused of transphobia to stop them from defending women if they come to power.

Time for that other GN staple. I despair. Well, yes.

volver

^The proposal to lower that age to 16 will mean that even more young people, with even less experience of the adult world, will take a precipitate decision that they could regret bitterly.^

Given that there is no need to medical intervention, if they decide they have taken the wrong path, can't they change back?

Anyone able to answer?

But we're not paranoid, no of course not.

Expect to be verbally assaulted indeed. Lost the right to speak publicly This is the over reaction I was talking about earlier. It takes away from valid discussion, but I expect I'm saying that because I hate women and I'm trying to shut them down.

It kind of demolishes the argument that trans rights takes nothing away from women doesn't it Smileless. Women have lost their safe spaces in refuges, prisons, hospital bed and changing rooms. They've now lost their right to speak publicly, and behind closed doors and must expect to be verbally and physically assaulted if they do so. I'm expecting that, before too long, the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst will be demolished because it will be seen as a figure of hate and division. But I'm assured that they mean us no harm.......

The proposal to lower that age to 16 will mean that even more young people, with even less experience of the adult world, will take a precipitate decision that they could regret bitterly.

Given that there is no need to medical intervention, if they decide they have taken the wrong path, can't they change back?

A very chilling account Chewbacca in your post @15.22. Hard to believe that this is happening in the UK in 2022.

This bill is an adjustment of an earlier Act. The original required those who wanted to "change their sex" to undertake to do (as near as possible) just that if they wished the "change of sex" to replace their birth sex on all their paperwork and for them to be legally that sex in all respects. - The requirement was for them to take active steps toward being the sex which they craved (through taking medication to alter their hormone production and/ot to have surgery to alter their genitalia. They were also expected to have a "dry run" of two years of living in their desired sex before their application for a legal change was considered.

This proposed update does indeed ease those requirements, removing the medical input and shortening the "dry run" to three months. - so far, so good, at least for the trans people - but it does mean that someoneof 18 can leap into legally changing their definition into the opposite sex ^without demonstrating that being in what they feel is the wrong category is causing them such mental and psychological distress that transition is the only way forward. The proposal to lower that age to 16 will mean that even more young people, with even less experience of the adult world, will take a precipitate decision that they could regret bitterly.

There is much in this that is inaccurate. There is no requirement of medical treatment. The act states
^The Standard Application track for a Gender Recognition Certificate requires applicants to
demonstrate that:^
• They have, or have had, gender dysphoria
• They have lived fully for the last two years in their acquired gender and continue to do so;
• They intend to live permanently in their acquired gender until death.
Two medical certificates are required but these do not have to show any treatment only a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

Well that's mutual.

Thank the Lord for that!

Chewbacca

^Us quiet little mousey types will just keep quiet in case the men see us, and we'll let you look after our futures for us.^

Perhaps that's for the best.

Yeah. Clearly never met me.

Page after page of discussion about gender identity. But apparently it can all be boiled down to the question, "What is a woman". In fact, its worth exposing the country to the worst government any of us have ever seen, because the other guy "doesn't know what a woman is".

Time for that other GN staple. I despair.

Us quiet little mousey types will just keep quiet in case the men see us, and we'll let you look after our futures for us.

Perhaps that's for the best.