Scottish survey on gender recognition bill update

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

supercilious retorts.

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

Too supercilious? Well tough.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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

25Avalon

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

Yes, I have.

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

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.