Scottish survey on gender recognition bill update

Have a good day Chewbacca .

volver

This, I believe is a discussion about self id. That's what the bill is about, isn't it?

So we have people who have concerns about men in women's toilets, men in women's sports, safe spaces etc. Fair enough, that needs to be addressed.

So, when we get into gender re-assignment surgery or, puberty blockers or medicalisation like that, isn't that what the bill is meant to be avoiding? The medicalisation of gender id? Am I missing something completely? Or is all the shouting something to do with the "thin end of the wedge?"

I've tried asking this before on another thread and I was told I'm disingenuous, people can't change sex, yada yada. That's not debate, its invective.

Do you really not know what has been happening, Volver ?

Sex as male/female categorisation in DNA and/or as production of large or small gametes for reproduction is fixed biologically, and despite what Stonewall frequently tells us, it is only a very small minority who are intersex or affected by malfunctions in their biological sexual development. They say 1.7 % are intersex, (nearly 1 in 50) but if you look further into the statistics and subtract those whose syndromes don't affect their male/female categorisation, those affected enough to need "re-assigning" are more like 0.018% - that is 1.8 people in 10,000. The vast majority of people wishing to transition are not intersex, and were not wrongly observed as male or female (by the way, sex is not randomly "assigned" at birth - doctors and midwives don't go "This one male, next one female, now one male, now one female, now I think we'll have the next three male . . ")

Occasional people have been living by choice as the opposite sex since time began, sometimes openly (usually if they had enough money and clout for their idiosyncracies to be overlooked) or in disguise. They have been variously considered to be prophets, seers, shamans, devils, nutters or weirdos, sometimes venerated, sometimes tolerated and sometimes persecuted.

The current mood is that all variations of living and all sexual arrangements should be included in the mainstream of society - nothing is to be considered weird - ,so there has been a push for transitioned people to be legally the sex that they feel internally that they are, in all respects. This has been strongly (even aggressively) supported by organisations like Stonewall, which has set up a kind of "approval register" for organisations that meet their (Stonewall's) criteria of trans-friendly governance. Stonewall was rather running out of causes (and income) once gay and lesbian homosexuality was accepted. In return for support, they offered their seal of approval in the PR and publicising/marketing of those organisations.
"The Stonewall Diversity Champions Scheme gives organisations access to PR-friendly brandingin exchange for their instigating - to put it frankly - certain measures of social control. Current members of the scheme include ble-chip companies, political parties, local authorities, government departments such as the Department of Education, schools, most Universities, newspapers and broadcasters, police and armed forces, arts organisations, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and many other major national bodies. Effectively, Stomewall seems to be aiming at the removal from member organisations of any public reference whatsoever to sex that might offend a trans person. . . . Stonewall defines transphobia as "the fear or dislike of someone based on the fact that they are trans, ^including denying their gender identity or refusing to accept it" And, of course, Stonewall famously says that trans women are women and transmen are men. So if you "refuse to accept" that, say, having a female gender identity makes you a woman, or make any other difference in your speech or behaviour because of the sex of a trans person, you are "transphobic" from Material girls,by Kathleen Stock p 196

This is far too much power for an organisation such as Stonewall.

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.

Also, it does absolutely nothing to address all the questions that have been raised about the effect of the Act on other adults, and on the many pre-pubescent children who (as they often do) have interests or attitudes usually associated with boys (if they are girls) or girls (if they are boys), and think that they would happier as the opposite sex. Worried parents take their children to gender clinics, where the ethos is always to affirm this and not to investigate alternative reasons - which can include unsuspected sexual abuse. Such is the abhorrence of the forcible aversion therapy once given to homosexuals that any suggestion of this being a phase, that any other treatment except the prescription of puberty-delaying drugs is rare. These drugs are not licensed for use on children, and can cause permanent sterility and bone damage.

This update to the original Act was a chance to calmly consider a lot of things that have become apparent seince it was passed, but it has been missed.

PS - Volver You are an intelligent person, and accustomed to reading and analysing work by intelligent people - and you are (presumably) now retired from doing so in connection to your work, so can I urge you to take the time to read "Material Girls" by Kathleen Stock. She lays out the background to this issue and its effects on society and individuals in a very readable way.

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

I emailed several MSP's re my concerns about some of the effects of this bill. Here is my reply from one. I doubt she has even read my email. -

"Thank you for writing to me about your concerns.

Myself, and the Scottish Green MSPs, wholeheartedly support the rights of trans people including that of self-identification. Trans rights and women’s rights are not in conflict, as all humans have the same human rights. The human rights of minority groups should not be open to debate and interpretation, they should be accepted.

I am aware of objections which have been raised, but I believe that many of these are based on misunderstandings. In particular, GRA reform will not affect access to single-sex spaces or services, which are already required not to discriminate against trans people unless this can be shown to be necessary in certain circumstances. This principle of non-discrimination is not dependent on GRC status, and this will remain the case following reform of the GRC process.

There are also concerns about the quality and accessibility of trans healthcare, and while this is not directly related to changes to the process for obtaining a GRC we are committed to improvement in these services. We have already secured crisis funding from the Scottish Government to begin the process of reforming these services, and we expect to bring waiting times in line with other NHS services as well as developing new delivery models. We also expect recommendations on the best ways to achieve equality for non-binary people.

These reforms are, in my view, long overdue. The delay in delivering them has been accompanied by a disturbing rise in transphobic sentiment in politics and in the media, as well as a rise in hate crime. I believe that the Scottish Government and all political parties have a responsibility to challenge transphobia, just as we must challenge homophobia, racism, misogyny, sectarianism and other forms of prejudice. Passing the legislation to reform the GRA is only one step, but an important one, and I look forward to voting in favour of the GRR legislation in the next stage.

I hope that you agree that we must do more to improve the lives of the trans community who have been the target of a hate campaign for the past few years.

Regards,
Lorna Slater MSP

Lorna Slater MSP (she/her)
Scottish Green Party | Pàrtaidh Uaine na h-Alba | Lothian Region"

Well, that is her nailed her colours to the mast.

Do you really not know what has been happening, Volver ?

Actually, no Esspee.

I only know one transgender person IRL - female to male. I have tried in the past to understand all this, but as I said above, there is no middle ground, is there? The sides are so entrenched already that anybody trying to jump into this is faced with a mountain of biased stories, from both sides. The nomenclature, even, is nasty and shouty. I looked at Twitter, at one of the feeds from a person mentioned above, and it was just unbelievable. There is no sensible discussion in real life, only shouting. Sorry, but that's how it appears to a disinterested observer.

I am a person who is very interested in allowing people to be who they want to. I expect most people here are. So my initial sympathies are with self-ID. Then I read about the issues associated with it that posters talk about, and I think "Yes, that's fair enough. That needs to be addressed." But there is then a descent into hysteria. Saying people are members of the patriarchy, saying people don't care about others rights. Its over-reaction and it doesn't win anybody over.

I haven't read your post in its entirety, but I will.

I wrote a reply to Volver before I read the many other replies - mine got rather long and much happened before I posted it and saw other's shorter responses, Sorry about the length!

elegran. Interesting response from Lorna Slater…no room for negotiation there.

What would be the correct reaction, Volver? For women who are concerned about the effect on their lives to pipe down? Be kind? Just shut up and let men dominate?

SueDonim

What would be the correct reaction, Volver? For women who are concerned about the effect on their lives to pipe down? Be kind? Just shut up and let men dominate?

This is exactly what I mean.

Pipe down? Shut up?

No. Speak about it like adults and stop over reacting. Stop pretending that people on the other side are the enemy who want to deny your right to speak. Stop making on that the people on the other side are wicked conspiracists out to deny women their rights. Have a grown up debate about it.

Now I'm sure someone will come along and tell me they're not over-reacting and the Patriarchy is on the rise and is out the get the women.

Who is to be the judge of what’s overreaction and and what’s sensible discourse? There’s plenty of good reasoning out there, Volver, if you care to look for it.

SueDonim

Who is to be the judge of what’s overreaction and and what’s sensible discourse? There’s plenty of good reasoning out there, Volver, if you care to look for it.

What's sensible discourse? None of this.

I feel so sorry for women who live in Scotland and am thankful that I don't.

Scotland's apparently urgent desperation to throw their women's safety, rights and very existence under a bus, is travelling south

Women in Ireland have already been thrown under the bus.

She’s a fully paid up member of the patriarchy.

Not only did she dismiss them, she actually shouted "Shame on you" at an MSP who attended a women's protest rally where demonstrators were protesting against the erosion of women's rights in Scotland. (none of that is true)

Sturgeon ain't no feminist.

Is that all well balanced debate? Is it unbiased? Don't think so.

By reducing the minimum age from 18 to 16 for applicants ,
how can the Scottish Government think that 16 year olds are mature enough to make a decision like this . ?
In Scotland 16 year olds can’t buy alcohol or drive. ..but strangely you can get married. It’s such a life changing decision and the medical and surgical procedures cannot be reversed.

Little as I know about this, this is what I think.

The Self ID bill allows people aged 16 and over to self declare. It doesn't change the requirements over medical and surgical procedures.

Does it? Happy to be corrected.

Volver. A 16 year old in Scotland has a right to refuse or consent to medical treatment….. so I think it will be the same with this. Unless someone else knows otherwise ?.

There is plenty of discourse on this topic outside Gransnet, Volver, with well-reasoned points of concern. I believe you’re a scientist, well used to researching topics, and this is no different, so I won’t patronise you with links.

It’s the TRA’s who are the unreasonable ones, threatening women such as JK Rowling with rape and death. I’ve never seen anyone on GN who is concerned about women’s rights threaten a transperson with rape and death. We all want transpeople to live their lives but we don’t care to concede the hard-won rights women have managed to gain for themselves, which we have already seen happening in the likes of sport and the Edinburgh Rape Centre.

Cathymac

*Volver*. A 16 year old in Scotland has a right to refuse or consent to medical treatment….. so I think it will be the same with this. Unless someone else knows otherwise ?.

Don't think so. I used all my skills as a scientist to Google it.

But again, happy to be corrected if someone has facts rather than supposition.

I’ve never seen anyone on GN who is concerned about women’s rights threaten a transperson with rape and death.

Is that the bar we've set ourselves now? At least she didn't threaten to kill anyone

This thread is riven with unsubstantiated claims and vitriol. That's a word that is often used on GN without justification, but here, its definitely vitriol.

volver you didn't reply to my post re medical research into women's ie genetically female bodies and how, if this bill is passed, transwomen can insist on being included in research sample. That's a serious reason to exclude genetically male people no matter how much they shout about it.

I didn't answer because I couldn't think of a way of putting this politely. But I guess that moment has passed.

Is it beyond the wit of any researchers to ask the person if they are the same sex as they were assigned at birth? Or would that send everybody on both sides into frenzied paroxysms? Either because they say you shouldn't even be asking because it infringes the person's rights, or on the other side because your sex isn't assigned at birth, its innate.

I remember we had a thread about that very topic a few weeks ago and people got so worked up about it. The one about the form used with women and men which asked if they were pregnant. Just ask the question, it won't be the end of civilisation as we know it. Can't everybody just have some common sense?

I think it contravenes the right of transpeople to privacy if you ask them whether they used to be the other sex.

Then we need to change it.

If I was in a medical trial I'd be asked many more personal questions than that. And if I didn't want to answer I'd be out of the trial.

Are people surprised now? Had people convinced themselves that I was pro-trans in every aspect, that they had to always be agreed with? Well this is what compromise looks like.

No doubt if you did volver and the person presenting as a woman was in fact male, you'd be accused of being transphobic or one of the more unpleasant accusations that have been given here on GN during the course of these discussions.

I remember a thread a few weeks ago and those who were getting worked up and appeared unable to have a civilised debate, were in support of what is being demanded by trans activists and their supporters, and quite happy to insult those who disagreed with them.

Common sense would certainly help wouldn't it and with so much common sense being expressed here on this thread alone, it does make you wonder why those with power and influence seem to be in the main, without any.

Perhaps because of the lies being told about them and their intentions?

Who knows.

Time for us all to act like adults. All of us.

I've been out all day (not in hiding), and can't claim to have all the answers about this. I don't see myself as hysterical, or nasty, or shouty. I am a woman who feels strongly about this topic, however, and women who express strong views are often patronised with those terms.

FWIW, my take on it is that there are three distinct issues running parallel but intertwined (if that's even possible ).

The first, and in many ways the simplest, is 'ordinary' transpeople, by which I mean people who have chosen, for whatever reason, to live as though they were members of the opposite sex. These people are just like everyone else (ie different from some and similar to others) and pose no threat to anyone. In fact, they are probably at more risk from others than they put anyone else at risk. Most people support their right to live as they choose, and I certainly do.

The second issue is around children and the current fashion for them to 'identify' as one of numerous 'genders'. This aspect of the debate brings up several concerns. The safeguarding issues surrounding the adults who have influence over these children, many of whom have been compelled to (or have bought into) following Stonewall's doctrines about gender, the issue of gender itself, and the medicalisation of 'feelings'.

The third 'strand' is the violence and bullying of the TRAs, which is easy enough to find online. Feminist meetings attached, death threats on Twitter, cancellation of people who speak out and so on. The utter disrespect of men who want to 'redefine the boundaries of womanhood' by remaining genitally intact, keeping beards and so on, but insisting that as transwomen they are women is breathtaking.

Underpinning all of this is the idea that gender and sex are linked. They are separate concepts, although in most societies there are distinct links between them. Sex is biological, and gender is socially constructed. Sex is not about a 'feeling' and is not, in this context, the same as sexuality. Gender conformity is sometimes enforced by law (eg in Afghanistan), but in 'the West' it has been eroded over the past century and longer, largely because of the efforts of feminists who have pushed against it. Women working, men being 'hands-on' parents, the unacceptability of things like strip clubs, men wearing cosmetics, women drinking pints - even women's football becoming mainstream - all these things and many more are examples of gender breaking down. People can pick and mix their lifestyle more now than ever before.

To say that if someone prefers to engage in behaviours that were previously considered to be appropriate for the opposite sex then they must be in the wrong body, or that they are or should become a member of that sex is setting back the cause of feminism by decades and potentially further; and this is where the accusations of patriarchy come in. Linking the notion of 'male' and 'female' gendered behaviour to male and female sex is going to benefit far more men than women, as it would suit many patriarchal men if women wore pretty frocks, cooked and cleaned and were financially dependent on them.

It is Stonewall who brought in the slogan 'No Debate' and simply shouted down anyone who looked for nuance. Many people were (and are) happy for genuine transpeople to live their best lives, and are generally 'kind' people who have no desire to discriminate; but they/we have been decried as TERFs, homophobes (??), and likened to Nazis (???), amongst other things (on here as well as in the wider world), and those doing the shouting are the TRAs.

I will briefly mention autogynephilia here, which is another can of worms. This post is long enough, but the term is easily googled, and is responsible both for a lot of the anti-lesbian feeling of many TRAs, and for the insistence of many transwomen that they can't be told apart from women.

I have probably missed things I will immediately remember, but that probably sums up my thoughts on the matter.

Not sure what lies have been told about politicians and their intentions resulting in them being unable or unwilling to answer the question 'what is a woman?'.