Scottish survey on gender recognition bill update

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 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.

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

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.

Have a good day Chewbacca .

Like this you mean?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10833067/Woman-22-barred-ladies-toilets-M-S-staff-mistook-man.html

I dont really see how you can segregate services by gender. Unless you are reducing people to a range of stereotypes.

Yes the conflation of sex and gender has caused massive problems. I can only say the difference as I see it. Sex is biological reality, gender for me are ideas imposed by society on how both sexes present.

FarNorth

Transwoman Debbie Hayton explains problems in Ireland's use of self-id of sex.

unherd.com/2021/07/how-the-trans-activists-fooled-ireland/

As far as I can see this issues she discusses are to do with protecting gender- (or sex? who knows...) specific services and spaces? Which as I said above is something that has to be addressed.

Nothing there about giving children drugs or medical interventions, which we stray into on GN with alarming alacrity.

could couldn't

Actually he said she "started screaming".

I guess we can all decide for ourselves who is the misogynist in that exchange.

www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1435673691967340545%3Flang%3Den-GB&ved=2ahUKEwim_9aVqvr3AhWRXsAKHdVjDFMQwqsBegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw2nMS56FtDEsXWn3tCLtoNu

This is the link to Twitter where Sturgeon shouts "Shame on you" at Murdo Fraser. He says she shouted. volver says she heckled. Either way it's semantics; Sturgeon's stance on women's rights in Scotland is abundantly clear: they're not as important as those of trans activists.

ps: I'm not hiding the thread; I'm going out for the day.

Volver I'm sorry you feel patronised, I'm sure that is not the intention of any poster here. I wasn't seeking to make an analogy between the suffering of the women of Afghanistan, Ukraine and the subject up for discussion and how it affects the women of Scotland, but merely to say when any woman/girl suffers at the hands of the patriarchy then for me it doesn't matter where the victim emanates from, I empathise with her situation as another woman.

I don't often contribute to these threads I think there are a lot of excellent posters, Doodledog, Smileless, Chewbacca, FarNorth, Iam64 and may more who saliently put forward a point of view I'm always in agreement with.

Gender recognition and the access to a women's safe space by male bodied persons is a huge issue for women, some may say it's a lot of fuss about nothing. I go swimming possibly 3 times a week so it focuses my mind when I'm getting dressed and undressed as to how and I imagine the other women there would feel if a male bodied person were to be able to access our designated female only area, and no I don't expect that to happen any time soon, but there is a possibility that could be a reality sometime down the line. It was indeed a reality for those who competed against Lia Thomas who felt very uncomfortable when Lia Thomas didn't take measures to hide their male genitalia around those women. I also look at this through the prism of my 12 year old granddaughter's eyes rather than my own, because I know her generation will be far more affected by any changes in legislation surrounding all of this. I know from taking her swimming with me, she automatically makes for a curtained off cubicle, self consciously private, she has expressed that she certainly wouldn't want to share a changing room with a male bodied person. It's not really about the sharing of toilets, I've been to many of late where those are a floor to ceiling cubicles that can be accessed by male or female, not a problem, it's so much more than that, it's about feeling and being vulnerable, not feeling safe. Magnified by thousands if you had been someone who had suffered sexual assault or rape. All of us here no doubt read about the woman on a hospital ward who was raped and then that was refuted, it could have happened on a women only ward! later it was revealed that ward also accommodated at the time of the assault a male bodied transwoman. . This to my knowledge has only happened once, but that is once too often and potentially there will be other scenarios where girls and women could be put into dangerous situations, so yes from that point of view, bearing mind Scotland is further down the road with the whole gender recognition issue, it is of interest to as fellow women.

FarNorth

GNers who know the difference between gender and sex are not the ones making the law.
ScotGov are making the law and are treating the two things as being the same.

That's it in a nut shell FarNorth.

A further quote from that response to ScotGov, posted by grannydarkhair.

Sadly, there are many examples of males using self ID to facilitate abuse of women and girls (including in Scotland- see Katie Dolatowski) but this seems to leave proponents of self ID unmoved. For example, in her statement introducing this Bill Shona Robison said that there is no evidence that men have had to pretend to be anything in order to abuse.

No, they don’t have to pretend, there is ample evidence that men will in fact undertake significant effort to actually become members of society in positions of trust and with access to victims in order to increase their opportunity to offend, such as scouts leaders, priests, taxi drivers, teachers, etc. This Bill opens the opportunity for them to now become women.

Men that wish to use this law to facilitate the abuse of women won’t be writing to you like I am, telling you how they plan to use this law in a way that has not been intended.

As a scientist volver you must be concerned at the potential repercussions for women's health needs? Female bodies are different from male ones at the most basic level. Research into diagnoses, therapies and treatments based on a sample that it not entirely female is surely seriously compromised. If this bill is passed how can researchers realistically exclude those that simply feel they're women rather than actually being women. They can demand legally to be included.

GNers who know the difference between gender and sex are not the ones making the law.
ScotGov are making the law and are treating the two things as being the same.

FarNorth

volver You must be aware that self-id of 'gender' can be used to have the sex signifier changed on birth certificates and that self-identification of 'gender' is to be regarded as a definition of a person's sex, at all times.
So it is indeed self-id of sex.

If you see it differently, please explain.

I can't explain because the whole thing is hidden in a fog of disinformation and preconception. I'll go and read up about it. If I can find anything unbiassed, which is highly unlikely.

Current piece of confusion: I've been told many times on here that gender isn't the same as sex. Now, apparently it is. Is it any wonder folk are confused?

And what comment have you about what Debbie Hayton wrote, volver?

FarNorth

That is an excellent response to the ScotGov consultation .

This tiny excerpt gives an idea of it, for those without the time to read it.

^"I am considering undertaking an artistic project which will involve me applying for a gender recognition certificate. When 'living as the acquired gender' has such trivial requirements, and the 'acquired gender' has only a circular definition, my art will aim to explore these ideas in an uncompromising and confronting way."^

That's not excellent.

Its childish and silly in the face of such an important discussion.

And yes, I read it.

volver You must be aware that self-id of 'gender' can be used to have the sex signifier changed on birth certificates and that self-identification of 'gender' is to be regarded as a definition of a person's sex, at all times.
So it is indeed self-id of sex.

If you see it differently, please explain.

That was about the response posted by grannydarkhair.

That is an excellent response to the ScotGov consultation .

This tiny excerpt gives an idea of it, for those without the time to read it.

"I am considering undertaking an artistic project which will involve me applying for a gender recognition certificate. When 'living as the acquired gender' has such trivial requirements, and the 'acquired gender' has only a circular definition, my art will aim to explore these ideas in an uncompromising and confronting way."

FarNorth

Transwoman Debbie Hayton explains problems in Ireland's use of self-id of sex.

unherd.com/2021/07/how-the-trans-activists-fooled-ireland/

I thought it was self id of gender? Or does it make it more scary if we use the word sex?

TerriBull

I'm not sure how the expression "I feel sorry for the women of Scotland" in THIS context can make any woman of Scotland touchy, that's not said in a way of "we'll come to your aid, because you can't fight your own battles", but more out of solidarity for women who could or may be badly affected by having their safe spaces removed. Those who expressed such sentiments I imagine would also be looking on to see how all this pans out from the point of view of it being adopted in England and Wales too. Does it make us patronising to say we feel sorry for example, for the women of Afghanistan or more lately the women of Ukraine, when we feel aghast and horrified at what they are having inflicted on them as our fellow female human beings. My own thoughts are surely when women are put into negative situations, don't we sympathise with each other regardless of borders? I'd call that empathy rather than patronising.

Well I'm feeling patronised.

Maybe its just me.

And comparing the situation of women in Afghanistan or Ukraine with those in Scotland is unacceptable.