What does an SNP MSP have to say to those concerned about the Gender Recognition Reform (self-id of sex) Bill?

That does seem to be the main motivation, as MSPs and others like to tell us how distressing the whole thing is for 'trans people' hence the need for a free-for-all (which is open to misuse, but they're sure that won't happen.)

Slightly dodgy logic.

Under present Scottish legislation someone needs, apart from "living as the other gender" for two years, a medical assessment (I think by two doctors) as a first step to achieving a gender re-assignment certificate.

However, there is a serious delay in getting the medical assessments, resulting in a big backlog. Is this the prime motivation for changing the law?

If so, it shouldn't be. Laws should be changed for reasons of principle, doing what is thought to be right, not just to compensate for flaws in the present system.

Of course, I understand I may be talking into empty air if volver has backed off after producing an expert male person whose focus is on other male persons (transwomen), as if he'll convince us.

I looked at McGregor's answers and I honestly, seriously cannot see what the problem is.
Ok, you fail to see any problems.
How would you answer the constituents who do see problems?

You, volver, may feel it's not your job to answer the constituents - and it isn't - but you've come on this thread to tell us we're worrying about nothing so it would be helpful if you could counter some of the points in the article.

Backed off a bit? Are you serious?😆

I wonder how much input they have listened to and took note of from womens groups and women in general?
Calling it female on female crime is crazy and lazy if a man has all his bits and if a man hasn’t got his bits, he’s still a male.

Does she not realise men with ill intent will use anything available to them to access potential victims?

No. If it doesn’t affect her, it’s not happening and won’t happen.

Fine. I'll back off then. Have fun.

Back off a bit? We are having a discussion on the internet.

This is why I don't normally take part in these discussions. Every situation is distorted to support the "anti" camp.

The UN expert said that trans people are subjected to all sorts of terrible things across the globe. Somebody says, are these things happening in Scotland? Is that why they are rushing this through? Surely it won't help? So, a false situation is set up; assuming that bad things are happening in Scotland and that the bill is being rushed through because of that.

It's the "When did you stop beating your wife?" situation. Person A answers, I have never beaten my wife! Next day in the papers, "Person A denies beating his wife!!"

I looked at McGregor's answers and I honestly, seriously cannot see what the problem is. So it would be nice if you all backed off a bit and accepted that not everyone is hanging on every word that is spoken about this, and interpreting it as a slight against women.

The main point of the OP article about Fulton McGregor MSP is that he did not have sensible answers for the questions and concerns of his constituents.

Perhaps you could cast your eye over the points made, volver, and let us know what sensible answers there are.

So a long time has been taken to progress not at all.
The main point, which you have ignored volver, is whether all those terrible things are happening in Scotland making legislation necessary.

Also, how will the legislation help if those things are happening?

Remind me how many women's groups have been heard over the last few months?

First consultation, 2017. Second consultation, 2019.

I understood they were not allowing much time for discussion of all the proposed amendments. No time, or was it just no inclination, to consult with women's groups who pleaded to be heard. I call that hasty.

Is all that happening in Scotland that they need this self ID law passed in haste?

The Bill was re-introduced after the SNP won the Scottish election in April 2021. The change was first on the agenda in 2016, when all parties supported it. It was postponed during the pandemic.

In haste?

I note that expert refers only to transwomen in the quoted bits. It's always transwomen that are prioritised never transmen, could that be because transwomen are male, and males must always come first? As for including killings, torture, beatings, and systematic social exclusion from health, employment, housing, and education. Is all that happening in Scotland that they need this self ID law passed in haste? Nicola Sturgeon says some people have "genuinely held concerns" about the plans but argued that others have latched onto the issue to spread transphobia. but denies that there is a risk that men will latch on to self ID for nefarious reasons. Does she not realise men with ill intent will use anything available to them to access potential victims?

If someone relies on stating the fact that a certain group is in the majority, in order to criticise the actions of an elected body, for instance, then I expect them to have based that on fact rather than supposition. Otherwise their criticism is unfounded and useless.

When someone says, "do you have proof or evidence to back up your assertion?" its not a valid answer to say "Do you have proof that its not true?"

Maybe not, but it establishes that both parties are arguing from the same basis (of making assumptions) assuming that the answer is no.

When someone says, "do you have proof or evidence to back up your assertion?" its not a valid answer to say "Do you have proof that its not true?" For instance:

"I think the moon is made of green cheese."

Can you prove it? Do you have any evidence?

"Can you prove its not?"

That's not how it works. 🤷🏼 Except maybe in primary school.

BTW, I know what the content of the link is. People have different ideas about this. Just thought that maybe people would be interested in seeing another view. Guess not.

"Does anybody have any proof at all that the majority agree with the Tories on this?

Some things can be popular without garnering the support of the majority. Is that difficult to understand?"

Does anybody have any proof that they don't? Your news link just reports the views of another expert, and the finishing line on the link sums it up, I think:

"Just as campaigners and parliamentarians are split, so too are experts."

I response to your final question, volver, no it isn't difficult to understand, thank you for asking.

If it's anything like GN it's just a very vocal and repetitive minority.

Does anybody have any proof at all that the majority agree with the Tories on this?

Some things can be popular without garnering the support of the majority. Is that difficult to understand?

I read this, this morning: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63993415

"If you agree with the Scottish Tories and everybody else thinks differently, that's telling you something."

"Not interested in doing what's right, only what's popular."

These two comments of yours, volver, seem to me to be contradicting each other. I am sad to think that I am agreeing with the Scottish Tories, but if they are actually saying what many people think (ie popular), perhaps for once they are right, as Doodledog says. It doesn't say anything about my political views except that I may well be in the majority here and for once, so are the Scottish Tories.

volver

Galaxy

Oh and the Tories used to be great supporters of self ID until Johnson decided it was a vote winner to pretend to be interested in womens boundaries, they care not one jot about women or transpeople.

Exactly.

Not interested in doing what's right, only what's popular.

Being right and being popular are not mutually exclusive.