Scarf in Suffragette colours not allowed in Scottish Parliament.

It was over zealous and wrong interpretation of rules by security The Presiding Officer apologised on behalf of the Parliament in the chamber End of

Glorianny agrees with ScotGov that ‘female’ includes males with GRC’s.

Is this true or not Glorianny?

I suspect I will either get no answer (meaning ‘yes she agrees’) or an evasive answer that may involve black female athletes, homosexuals or a passing the buck to ‘NS and other women say . . .’

But I feel you ought to be given a fair chance to say whether or not that is true.

Galaxy

Yes none of us know about the issues that gay people faced in the past

Or the symbolism behind the suffragette colours. Or about racism. Or testosterone levels in athletes. It's a good job we have people here willing to educate us all, isn't it?

It's a shame there isn't more recognition of the issues faced by gay people today, who are seeing their decades of activism hijacked by Stonewall who have forced TQ+ on them.

Yes none of us know about the issues that gay people faced in the past

Nobody I know thinks that today, which is why the idea of a medical diagnosis is ridiculous. Please stop insinuating that you are the only person to know anything of the history of gay rights, women's suffrage, feminism or any of the other things about which you so often lecture us. Those things may have been a minority interest at one time, but these days they are so mainstream as to be unremarkable, and past indignities suffered by gay people are well represented in film and TV. I don't need to look it up, and I doubt that anyone else on this thread would need to either. Also, you asked if we thought that homosexuals would need a diagnosis, not whether we were aware that they were subjected to medical atrocities in the past.

Where you could help me out though would be to explain your remark upthread about how the way gender expectations influence the way the sexes are treated means that 'therefore' TWAW. I am still puzzled about that one.

You agree with ScotGov that 'female' includes males with GRCs?

FarNorth

^ScotGov is currently putting through a Bill to allow legal self-id of sex within 3 months of making a declaration about it [....] with no real requirement for proof of 'living as' the opposite sex.^

Given that you understand the need for single-sex categories in some situations, can you really see no problem with this especially if ScotGov is successful in its aim to have GRC identity be legally equivalent to biological sex?

No because the law on female only spaces will remain the same. Regardless of if they have a GRC or ot some spaces can bar transwomen.
Actually gender dysphoria only requires medical treatment if the individual chooses to take that route.
Some people categorised homosexuality as a mental illness at one time. If you don't know the history or the horrendous "medical" treatment gay people were subjected to look it up. Thankfully few people think that today.

Lathyrus

A rational explanation of why one set of colours-rainbow- is permissible but another set -women’s rights - is not ?

Absolutely!

G&T
I know Perhaps you could explain why gender dysphoria needs to have a medical diagnosis. Would you suggest that homosexuals need the same medical intervention?
I would answer this, but if you don’t understand the excellent explanations already posted, there’s no point in repeating it.

That last to Glorianny

ScotGov is currently putting through a Bill to allow legal self-id of sex within 3 months of making a declaration about it [....] with no real requirement for proof of 'living as' the opposite sex.

Given that you understand the need for single-sex categories in some situations, can you really see no problem with this especially if ScotGov is successful in its aim to have GRC identity be legally equivalent to biological sex?

undines

Sorry this has all become so silly. Surely there are more important things to get 'fashed' about?
Such as the barbarism that we are supporting in Qatar.
Not that I wish to start another thread....

Is this a different version of 'no debate' the phrase so beloved by Stonewall et al?
I'm not supporting Qatar, and have posted to that effect on the Football in Qatar tread. You of course are entitled to support them if you wish.

I am able to think of more than one thing undines, I have just had a conversation about the World Cup in all its hypocrisy , and now I am thinking what to have for tea, one doesnt negate the other.

It's possible to be concerned about more than one thing at once.

In what way do you find this thread silly undines?

Feel free to get fashed about what fashes you. Why not start a thread of your own it this one seems silly?

I, and others, happen to think that this subject is very important, and I can't see any of us wanting to stop talking about it any time soon. No need to join in unless you want to though. I believe you can hide threads that you don't want to see clogging up your screen.

Sorry this has all become so silly. Surely there are more important things to get 'fashed' about?
Such as the barbarism that we are supporting in Qatar.
Not that I wish to start another thread....

Oh, and mainly Section 17, Glorianny.

(about the logical leap? Any thoughts yet?)

Homosexuals do not want special treatment under law. Can't you see the difference? Is that why you constantly conflate gay issues with trans ones?

A gay man is still a man, and subject to the same rules as other men. He can't (or shouldn't) go into a female changing room, or be imprisoned with women, or compete against women in sport.

Why would he need a medical diagnosis to tell him he is sexually attracted to other men?

You do understand that gender dysphoria generally requires medical treatment in whatever form that may take. Especially for young people.

FarNorth

Glorianny ScotGov lawyers were arguing in court, last week, that the 'gender' on a person's GRC should be taken as their 'sex' at all times.
What they want is that where something is specified as being for females only, or for men only, (the case in question being the Public Boards Act which was intended to help increase female representation on Public Boards) the category of 'female' includes males with GRCs and the category of 'male' includes females with a GRC.

With respect to the Public Boards Act this may not be earth-shattering, but it would create the precedent for all 'single-sex' situations if the judge finds in favour of the Scottish Government.

You may not have been aware of this as it would apply in Scottish law only.

We now have to wait a few months before we hear the decision on that.

In addition, ScotGov is currently putting through a Bill to allow legal self-id of sex within 3 months of making a declaration about it, with no medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and with no real requirement for proof of 'living as' the opposite sex .

I know Perhaps you could explain why gender dysphoria needs to have a medical diagnosis. Would you suggest that homosexuals need the same medical intervention?

Doodledog

*Still why bother posting your own views when you can misrepresent someone elses?*

FN was reporting NS's actions and stated intent, in the form of the GRA, which would in fact allow men to have the status of female.

You are the one telling us what other people think Glorianny. 'NS and many other women think. . . .'

Instead of looking for 'gotcha's in other people's posts, could you please clarify the confusing one you made upthread? If I could understand what currently seems to me a huge lapse in logic then more of what you say might start to make sense.

here's the proposed changes of the GRA act in Scotland www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s6-bills/gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill/introduced/explanatory-notes-accessible.pdf
Perhaps you could identify which bits do what FarNorth asserted.

There is, btw, to be a new crime in Scottish law of making a fraudulent declaration of gender identity.
Oh, good?
No, it will be meaningless as there is no way to know if someone genuinely believed what they said about their gender identity/ sex or not - even if they go on to commit crimes which are made easier by their new 'sex'.

Glorianny ScotGov lawyers were arguing in court, last week, that the 'gender' on a person's GRC should be taken as their 'sex' at all times.
What they want is that where something is specified as being for females only, or for men only, (the case in question being the Public Boards Act which was intended to help increase female representation on Public Boards) the category of 'female' includes males with GRCs and the category of 'male' includes females with a GRC.

With respect to the Public Boards Act this may not be earth-shattering, but it would create the precedent for all 'single-sex' situations if the judge finds in favour of the Scottish Government.

You may not have been aware of this as it would apply in Scottish law only.

We now have to wait a few months before we hear the decision on that.

In addition, ScotGov is currently putting through a Bill to allow legal self-id of sex within 3 months of making a declaration about it, with no medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and with no real requirement for proof of 'living as' the opposite sex .

Oreo

Doodledog

Everyone is taking in code

I can’t keep up with the half of it, but my offering of the day is
TWTWTW
I used to like Millicent’s hair.

Yesterday's paper telling yesterday's news.

Still why bother posting your own views when you can misrepresent someone elses?

FN was reporting NS's actions and stated intent, in the form of the GRA, which would in fact allow men to have the status of female.

You are the one telling us what other people think Glorianny. 'NS and many other women think. . . .'

Instead of looking for 'gotcha's in other people's posts, could you please clarify the confusing one you made upthread? If I could understand what currently seems to me a huge lapse in logic then more of what you say might start to make sense.