Scotland's Gender Recognition Reform Bill to be debated today 20 Dec & voted on 21 Dec

The Scottish Prison Service and Scottish Police have both confirmed that they record people's sex as whatever they say it is.
Men's crimes are being recorded as committed by females.

Scottish Prison Service stated to my MSP that they keep no record of incidents involving men (transwomen) in women's prisons.
Incidents are recorded as if all prisoners involved are female.

Finally, I detect a suggestion in the last few posts that published information is deliberately misleading because "nobody will say what a woman is". I have no answer for that. It's beyond parody.
I assume that it’s my post you are citing? Sorry, but the question is unclear - do you mean that the idea that someone might question the veracity of reports (or Google searches) is beyond parody, or that the fact that research data is now unreliable (or at least difficult to interpret) is beyond parody?

I don’t think that the individual researchers are necessarily deliberately obfuscating - their time is too precious to waste on doing that, and it would fly in the face of their professionalism and desire to get to the bottom of issues - but surely you can see that they have their hands tied behind their backs when very basic concepts such as ‘woman’ are not only controversial but used in different ways by different people? I also wonder why ethics committees haven’t picked up on this (if they haven’t). All university-sanctioned research has to be submitted to an ethics committee before being signed off, so yes, I do question who is behind studies without such scrutiny.

For clarity, volver - do you know what ‘female’ means in the context of your suggestion that 4% of paedophiles are female, and is the definition consistent in the studies that have contributed to the arrival at that figure? Do you know whose figure 4% is? Also - how do you define ’woman’ yourself ?

You can ask me leading questions as much as you like.

I won't be answering.

For any interested, admin load is not the main reason for England & Wales not simply to accept Scottish GRCs.

The reasons are about the impacts in people's lives.

From the MBM article :
"Reasons why the UK Government might not wish to grant recognition now or in future have meanwhile accumulated. These include the Interim Cass Review expressing concern about the relationship between social and medical transition for young people, concerns expressed by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission specifically about cross-border effects of recognition, including in schools, and the UK Government receiving a strong statement of concern about the Bill from the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls. Drawing attention to the overseas list also brings out that the UK Government recognising Scottish GRCs, which will be open to people with gender recognition from any country in the world, would create anomalies in the treatment of people from overseas by the UK Government depending on where they lived in the UK. The UK Government will also face pressure from campaigners not to introduce self-declaration “by the back door” as argued here by Fair Play For Women, with prisons and schools a focus of concern."

fairplayforwomen.com/self-id-by-back-door/

Fine. Don't accept it then, E&W.

Scotland does.

You seem to have completely missed the point about how the laws of the UK have to work together.

Have I?

Many seem to have completely missed the point that if the Scottish Parliament passes a law that is within its competence, then the UK Parliament would be well advised not to tell them they can't do it.

I'm tickled by the fact that the Scottish Parliament have deferred to the Westminster on the subject of competence to hold a referendum, having tested it in the courts. But there are many people having a little hissy fit about something that the Scottish Parliament are completely within their rights to do, but that Westminster and a proportion of the population don't like. Who is it that doesn't understand democracy and the rule of law here?

Perhaps somebody will explain to Mr Starmer that he can think what he likes about 16 years olds, but that the Scottish Labour Party supported the Bill. So they need to get their act together don't they? What a guddle.

volver

You can ask me leading questions as much as you like.

I won't be answering.

That's the predictable response from the trans lobby on here. I have no idea why people find it so hard to answer questions about views they hold so dearly, but every time, people get irritated that someone dares to ask them to justify the views that they ram down our throats, yet expect fact-based feminists to defend our own views to the death.

I'll try these ones then, on the grounds that if you have examined the thinking behind the views you vigorously defend then surely the answers are readily available?

If you haven't thought through the thinking behind your beliefs, how do you know that you hold them?

If you don't know what a woman is, how can you rail against those who do, and how can you declare that a man can become one?

If you haven't checked the source of the statistics that you claim rubbish those put forward by another poster, how can you have confidence that yours are right and hers are wrong?

I'm not in the "trans lobby" Doodledog. If the anti-trans lobby stopped setting up people who think differently to them as some kind of "lobby" we'd get on a lot better. Apologies if you don't want to be known as the anti-trans lobby, I've lost track of what people consider offensive language in this debate.

So don't be ranting about "my beliefs". My beliefs are generally that the WM government should butt out of Scottish decisions. That if people don't like a law that's been passed, that they have every right to speak and demonstrate against it, but that they don't get to denigrate those who just don't agree with them. That when those that don't like the new law have people who quote Hitler to support their position, they might want to consider that they are not the good guys (to quote David Mitchell). That calling into question people's integrity when quoting stats does you no good at all.

The Daily Mail, in case you are still interested. From Police figures and the ONS. So it must be true.

Incidentally, this is a tactic too isn't it? Pick on something not salient to the discussion and try to prove the other side don't know what they are talking about.

Who has been denigrating or/and quoting Hitler?

Why not just answer questions, then?

FarNorth

Who has been denigrating or/and quoting Hitler?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIfvRnpcuug

Good question, FN.

The whole premise of this 'debate' is that one 'side says that women are adult human females, and the other says that that POV is discriminatory, phobic and so on, and that women are, well, something that people have in their heads and is connected with authentic selves and being in the right body.

The point of language is that it allows people to use otherwise arbitrary signs to discuss concepts that go beyond pointing at things, and for that to work the signs have to be agreed amongst speakers of a common tongue. As soon as that breaks down, discussion is impossible, which is what is happening in the trans 'debate'.* The choice of language (eg the use of terms such as 'ranting') is also indicative of the attitude of the speaker/writer, but that is well-established on here on the whole, so tends to wash over me, other than to scream 'ironic'.

No tactics here. I have nothing to prove, as my position is clear - women are adult human females. As they have always been, and always will be, unless we evolve to the point where we reproduce differently. I think that the corruption of the language is very relevant to the discussion - it is one of my biggest fears about the whole trans situation (is 'situation' acceptable?) We can no longer compare figures about sex differences, as they are collected on the basis of so-called 'gender', and 'facts' don't mean what they did even five years ago. Where this will end is anyone's guess.

*I say 'debate', as any discussion needs to have both sides in a position of willingness to explain the reasons for their viewpoints, preferably backed up by evidence. If one side quotes data (in this case that the number of female paedophiles is 4%) to contradict someone else's figures of 1%, but is unable to say that they have even considered the validity of their source, or whether the two figures are based on research using the same parameters then the evidence is, at best, in doubt.

But yes. Why are you so resistant to answering questions, and in what way are they 'leading'?

Just skipping over the Hitler bit then?

Okey dokey.

No. I think I know the sketch you mean, and if so, it is a comedy about the signification of skulls, and how that is read by more 'thoughtful' SS members, if memory serves.

There is a vague link between that and 'baddies', in the same way as there is a link between the signification of the word 'woman' and its link to the concept of 'adult human female'. Corrupt the word/sign and you corrupt the meaning, whether that is to make the SS seem less odious or to make the concept of women less clear and therefore less powerful.

Are you looking for a debate about Semiotics here?

The sketch? Oh well done.

What about the recording of a person at a Posey Parker-inspired rally quoting Hitler and using that as justification for what they believe?

I have no idea what you are on about now. What has Hitler got to do with this? Is it Godwin's Law or another accusation that questioning the eradication of women equates to Nazi sympathies?

Or maybe a distraction from the perfectly reasonable and simple questions you were asked earlier, none of which had anything to do with Hitler.

I posted a link at 12:30. What else do you want me to do? Mime it?

volver

FarNorth

Who has been denigrating or/and quoting Hitler?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIfvRnpcuug

Yep one person, not people which is plural. The reference to Hitler using the phrase 'the big lie' would probably have been best avoided, but she spoke the truth when she says the 'big lie' is that transwomen are women. They obviously aren't or they wouldn't need to transition would they? They remain male, a piece of paper with the marker saying female is just a big lie. Transwomen are transwomen or trans identified males if you prefer.
Would you like us to post videos of some of the thousands of abhorrent, vile things some transpeople and their allies have said, and also show them attacking women for expressing their rights to single sex spaces?

And there we have it.

The person quoting Hitler (at a rally organised by GC icon Posey Parker?) is quite right.

As I said above, okey dokey.

Leaving you all now to stew in your own opinionated juices.

What a thoroughly nasty thing to try and imply volver I do not endorse any of the vile thoughts or actions of Hitler, but just because he used the phrase "the big lie" it does not invalidate someone using that phrase to describe another big lie. Maybe you truly believe people can change sex, but as someone cognisant with biological science I know they can't, and that there are only two sexes, not the 'spectrum' beloved of the trans lobby.

I don’t think you are of the trans lobby Volver what I get from your comments is that you are of the Independence lobby and what’s decided in Holyrood is for you holy writ.
It doesn’t matter what’s decided there and becomes law you will have no criticism of it at all. All that seems to anger you is anything to do with Westminster.Have you given real thought to women’s worries about this?
I know that it wasn’t just the SNP but some Labour and others going along with this wokery, maybe for votes or to toe the
line and these matters are devolved, but if they affect anyone here in England, and they will, as hundreds of these certificates will be handed out and people move about, you can’t blame Westminster for thinking they may have to step in.
Put women first, no matter where in the UK they are.

I'm out.

At home or at work I wouldn't put up with being spoken to in the way you talk to people, volver, and I'm not putting up with it here either.

You appear to be incapable of debate, refuse to answer questions yet snarkily fire them at others, (I missed the link with its demand to watch a video) so there is no point in continuing the 'conversation'. As for 'opinionated juices' unless that was supposed to be an ironic comment I have rarely seen such a lack of self-awareness.

I am not flouncing from the thread, but declining to engage with you further on it.

GC icon . Actually subject to much divisive debate as you would know if you knew much about the issues.

You cant answer the sex segregated questions because there is no answer. Everyone knows that. Thats why no debate was the first position because once debate starts the absolute absurdity of it all is clear.