During stage 2 hearings of the GRR Bill in the Scottish Parliament, women are being asked to either remove scarves knitted in Suffragette colours of green, purple and white or leave. At least one woman has chosen to leave. And yet quite a few of the MSPs are wearing Rainbow lanyards.
twitter.com/obsolesence/status/1592447547263844352?s=61&t=2RGtdfWK_cUWRQG6nAtdXw
PS To suggest that there is a link between gay people and TRA activity is offensive to many gay people, who never asked for special treatment - just equality. Rightly, IMO. Has that occurred to you as a defender of all things gay?
Men do claim all sorts of things to access women and children.
Claiming to be a woman so as to access what should be safe places for women and children is one of the things they do.
Enabling them to legally be a woman will give them immediate and undeniable access to these places.
What measures will be put in place to prevent this abuse? Surely it’s been thought through as part of the proposed Act.
Self ID never means just deciding to identify as a woman. It means a legal process that is reasonable and does not require medical assessment.
That is exactly what is being accepted throughout society, including hospitals and prisons.
The Scottish Government is in the process of making a law that says all anyone has to do is make a declaration of being the opposite sex, wait 3 months and Bob's your Auntie - with the legally recognised 'sex' of female.
How about the other things I asked you Glorianny?
I know enough about the treatment suggested for homosexuals in the past and I agree that it was appalling.
I’ve hunted and hunted Glorianny but I haven’t found any evidence that homosexuals were actually told that if they wanted relationships with men, that they were suffering from gender dysphoria and should change gender and say they were women instead. That would make their attraction to men more acceptable and make them feel better about themselves.
Perhaps you, with your omniscience could point me in the direction of that information.
I know you won’t bother, but here’s a thought.
I’ve just remembered , that now TW are actually claiming to be that ‘women’ and saying that because the TW believes his own delusion, he should be an acceptable partner for a lesbian.
You couldn’t make it up!
FarNorth
How about the other things I asked you Glorianny?
I’m not closely following this thread.
But has anyone addressed FarNorths questions regarding ShapeShifter?
I’ve just remembered , that now TW are actually claiming to be that ‘women’ and saying that because the TW believes his own delusion, he should be an acceptable partner for a lesbian.
Believing you (generic) are acceptable as a partner is one thing, but calling someone transphobic and threatening them with extreme violence when they don't want to have sex with you is quite another. It's a logical extension of the TWAW school of thought, though, and not a million miles from the old 'if you don't fancy me you must be a lesbian' 'joke' of old.
However much they may 'identify' with women, it seems that the same self-delusion and misogyny runs through the veins of a certain type of straight man. The difference is that nowadays there are plenty of TRAs and Incels willing to back the 'jokes' up with violence.
Oh, and no, FC. 'Some people' are very selective about which questions they answer.
Not that I remember FC but it has all got a bit confusing.
Shape Shifter's point is that he had mental health problems that were never mentioned by those who wanted to get his money for surgery.
Likewise, people in the UK who are being instantly affirmed as the opposite sex may find they land up with further problems because of never having psychological counselling.
The problems may be caused by physical changes that they make, or by worsening of their original mental illness, or both.
Doodledog
Oh, and no, FC. 'Some people' are very selective about which questions they answer.
It is frustrating because it means you can never have a proper discussion.
When it’s just points scoring and needing to win the argument regardless, it doesn’t ever change anybody’s mind like a real discussion might.
Exactly, Lathyrus. What with that, and the flouncing, there is never a chance of learning from these threads. I've asked so many questions over the years I've been posting, and usually get sarcastic or condescending responses or simply ignored. And it is the so-called GC posters who are accused of 'shutting down' debate🙄.
Anyone who's just quietly reading along can decide for themselves who makes sense around here.
I am always curious about the fact that most trans women - especially those who have not had any hormone treatment or gone through gender reassignment surgery - happen to be lesbians. Call me a cynic but...
Some thoughts on this
Since there is no need to physically transition at all and no definition of living as a woman — an SNP minister suggests it might mean changing the name on your gas bill — any man could become fully, legally female on his say-so alone. There’s a notional two-year prison sentence for making a false declaration. But when legal definitions are so intangible, what constitutes “false”? Last year the Scottish government allowed GRC-holders to change the date and location of their weddings on their marriage certificates to protect their identity. When public documents can be falsified at whim, what is “truth”?
One modest amendment proposed that registered sex offenders should be ineligible to obtain GRCs, possession of which would allow them into women’s spaces and could, in effect, let them conceal their prior identity and offending history. But the Scottish government rejected this on human rights grounds. It has not addressed fears that this will also render DBS checks worthless.
Why is so much of this catering to the sensibilities of men, whether they have committed sex offences or not, and none of it addresses the justifiable concerns of women?
I know we live in a patriarchal society, but how is it that so many women speak in favour of this? How? If enough people spoke out (and here I'm thinking of MPs, council leaders etc) it would get so much easier to do so. As it is, the people like Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry have to be so brave, as they get all the flak.
Doodledog
Why is so much of this catering to the sensibilities of men, whether they have committed sex offences or not, and none of it addresses the justifiable concerns of women?
I know we live in a patriarchal society, but how is it that so many women speak in favour of this? How? If enough people spoke out (and here I'm thinking of MPs, council leaders etc) it would get so much easier to do so. As it is, the people like Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry have to be so brave, as they get all the flak.
So many of these things have been discussed ad infinitum so actually I've stopped reading these threads. I pop in occasionally, read a couple of things, recognise the same old rants and simply drop out again.
No point in discussing anything with people who only ever discuss transwomen, never transpeople.
No point in discussing anything with people who just refuse to consider any other point of view.
No point in discussing anything with people who discriminate against transwomen because they think they are men and transmen because they insist they are women. You can't have it both ways. If women believe they are men you either support them or not. Mostly though if your views can't cope with the problem they present you ignore them.
You are right glorianny
Trans men are often left out because they are considered women yet, they don't consider themselves women and that matters
No point in discussing anything with people who don't discuss (ie clarify their posts when they don't make sense) or answer questions they find too difficult.
I don't ignore transmen. At the risk of being accused of ad nauseam repetition I will explain why I don't mention the often, though - it is because they are not asking to pose as women. They pose no more of a sexual threat than any other woman (ie almost negligible), and they don't cheat in sport.
And no there is no point in these discussions really
Too many people I just can't engage with any more. I'm just done now
I wonder if you’d be prepared to address the question I put and that links in to the amendment about refusing a GRC to known sex offenders.
Has the proposed Act made any recognition of the reality that self ID does give entry to predatory males or females?
Don't hold your breath, Lathyrus. I feel a flounce coming on. . .
If only the supporters of the Bill could say,
I see this is going to be a problem.
We need to think about this.
trisher you are right about there being
No point in discussing anything with you.
I don’t mention transmen (included in your transpeople) because I am concerned with the damage TW do to women.
I do mention “all trans” ( must have been one if the posts you missed) when I sympathise with the peaceful majority of trans about how much damage has been done to the image of trans by those TW who cheat, demand access to female safe spaces, deny females the right to a female attendant, etc. etc.
if you did bother to read posts honestly and with an open mind on here, you would have to acknowledge that
most posters on here do understand and even sympathise understand the issues faced by some trans.
Unlike you however, they also see the problems for those trans and for females, being caused by the actions of ill intentioned trans and the TRA who carry out attacks on females whilst purporting to support trans.
Has the proposed Act made any recognition of the reality that self ID does give entry to predatory males or females?
Not so far.
Several Scottish politicians have told us that abusive men are a problem while transwomen aren't.
With no recognition that the former could claim to be the latter and would be further enabled by the lax legislation proposed.
This discussion thread has reached a 1000 message limit, and so cannot accept new messages.
Start a new discussion
Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
