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

Having spent most of my working life as a Women's Aid worker it comes as no surprise that I have more concern for the Thousands - yes thousands,of women and girls who are subject to violence/rape/ murder each year by ordinary non trans, male persons. The court reports in my local paper every week record 3,4 or more of these cases, whereas, I have never seen a report of any crime committed by a trans person in a woman only space. I am not saying that has never happened but such cases are a drop in the ocean compared with the Male on Female crime statistics.

When I hear the hysteria around intact males being free to enter Women's toilets and changing rooms, I am reminded that in many European Countries such facilities are often unisex without any problems. With reference to prisons it is a fact that most violent or sexual attacks are perpetrated by males on males. A senior prison officer told me that most requests for transfer to a Women's prison are made by young males who have been assaulted in a Men's prison and who would feel safer in a Women's prison. The fault lies with an under funded/under staffed/over crowded Prison Service.

As to refuges, it is the case that WA have always had the right to refuse anyone deemed 'unsuitable for refuge' e.g. alcoholic, drug dependent, with male children over 16, or if the refuge is full. It is the Local Authority who MUST offer accommodation to anyone fleeing violence, usually in a homeless person's unit, often with continuing support from Women's Aid.

The root of the problem is male on female (and male) violence, not genuine Trans people.

Says it all.

To be fair the liberal Democrats got themselves in a right mess over this at the last election, my strongest advice to any political party would be dont make this issue an issue! on either side of the debate, there hasnt been a political party so far that it has worked well for. They tend not to listen to me though

A few months ago I started a thread to try to find out what the issues were and why people felt so strongly about them (Sorry to dig up old threads.) I was told I as disingenuous, that I was a scientist so I should know, that I was probably a man. That one sticks with me, obviously.

Yes, I know - I said the bit about you being a scientist, as I'm sure you remember. I do think your claims of neutrality were/are disingenuous, as you must be fully aware that changing sex is impossible.

I didn't, however, say you were probably a man. That sort of thing is not my style and not the way my mind works.

I'm not disappointed - just bored of going round in circles with no attempt from trans agenda supporters to engage with any of the questions in a way that could result in debate.

Sorry, MSP.

I need coffee.

My local MPS supports the bill too. I didn't vote for him but he is a good man, and normally implacably opposed to what the SNP want.

I am sure I should be aware of Alex Cole Hamilton but I wasnt so thankyou for that. His Twitter thread on this is quite er breathtaking.

I think traumatised women and women who need spaces without men (for other reasons) are entitled to those spaces. People cant change sex. Does that help? I am not being arsey. That's my position as briefly as I can explain it.

Doodledog

And about the issues?

Remind me - are you still on the fence, the voice of moderation, an innocent enquirer, or have you come to any sort of conclusion about this issue yet?

I was just thinking about that.

A few months ago I started a thread to try to find out what the issues were and why people felt so strongly about them (Sorry to dig up old threads.) I was told I as disingenuous, that I was a scientist so I should know, that I was probably a man. That one sticks with me, obviously.

I think the GC have conflated ideas that make the whole thing seem scary to anyone who reads about it. And I think the Scottish Government are being very aggressive in trying to get this through come what may.

Then I see people on the news like Alex Cole-Hamilton, who I usually have no time for, saying that the bill is a good thing. So yes. Still on the fence, sorry to disappoint you.

And nothing anybody says helps with that.

I would be here all day if I put up every time a GC feminist was threatened with sexual violence or just bog standard violence. Women have collated and kept thousands of these threats. There was a beautiful exchange recently from India Willoughby saying a lesbian looked like a man.

Anyone going to actually answer Doodledog's questions?

And about the issues?

Remind me - are you still on the fence, the voice of moderation, an innocent enquirer, or have you come to any sort of conclusion about this issue yet?

People will insult you terribly, but they shouldn't do that. And you shouldn't let it bother you.

GC people can lose patience but the others have to be perfect, sorry, them's the rules....

Right, what were we talking again before you were the brunt of the misplaced invective from GC people? Oh yes...

I paraphrase.

No, incivility and insulting behaviour is not just on here.

That doesn't address any of the issues, though.

How does someone 'live as a woman' for the requisite time? What exactly does that involve, and how does it differ from 'living as a man'?

As sex offenders have, by definition, sexually assaulted at least one woman, in what way does that suggest that they 'just know' that they are, indeed, a woman?

If we are 'all in this together', what is the advice to female sports professionals who now have a massively reduced chance of ever being top of there field?

How can gay people be protected from erasure when same-sex attraction is denied, and has been replaced with 'same-gender attraction' without their consent?

Is there to be any protection from known and convicted sex offenders for woman and girls, particularly the vulnerable ones?

Is anyone (on here will do for now) going to even attempt to answer these questions, or instead are they going to continue to pick fault with posters who may, from time to time lost patience with the prevarication, diversions and downright insults and fight back?

Looks like the "you're probably a man in disguise" idea isn't just among GNers.

Lovely defenders of women's rights. We're all in this together, is it?

Galaxy

I apply exactly the same views to all men in womens spaces, it has zero to do with them being trans. If men with ginger hair were currently campaigning to access womens spaces I would be saying exactly the same.

Yes.

The founder of a support group for parents/carers of children with exceptional complex medical needs and palliative care has returned a donation which was received from Shona Robison MSP in 2018, in protest on the GRR Bill.

Another suggested amendment was to keep the minimum age to apply for a GRC at 18, instead of reducing it to 16.
That was voted down, regardless of several speakers making very good points about why it should be passed.
The only concessions are that under-18s will have to have 'lived in their chosen gender' for at least 6 months before applying, instead of 3, and will have to give name and contact info of at least one over-18 person with whom they have discussed their decision.
(Presumably, even a teacher, friend or family member who immediately agrees that the young person is trans would count as someone they have had a discussion with.)

Emma Roddick MSP suggested that demedicalising the application process (removing requirement for diagnosis of gender dysphoria) would make young people less likely to seek medical solutions (hormone medication and/or surgery).
I think her reasoning is flawed.

Am really wondering if you really hold those views Volver
Or simply like to be seen to be different.
There is no reason at all to object to the amendments put forward.Who wants to see sex offenders (men) be allowed to serve their sentences in a womens prison because they now identify falsely as a woman.Am just using that as an example, their are others.
I’ve no idea why anyone objects, it seems not just reasonable but necessary.

I think I heard the word scaremongering about concerns with regard to the tavistock, definitely with regard to puberty blockers, so it's not a phrase I take that seriously now.

Stop scarmongering about men getting into womens' spaces; if a person is a threat, whether they are male female or something else entirely, (Martian?) deal with that.

Well, that was the aim of the amendment - to deny self-id to sex offenders. But no, that was deemed to be scaremongering.

What is offensive is being told that if you take a slightly more open view of this whole thing, that you are not interested in women's safety, that you are not a feminist, and in my own personal case, that I was probably a man masquerading as a woman on here for nefarious ends. Those are not general criticisms, those are things that have been said to me on here. So yes, my capacity for civility is severely dented.
I had a 'slightly more open' view until I was told on here that I was a right wing bigot in a very early post. I do try to remain civil however, although I bite back when some of the more offensive comments are made. I deal with attacks at the time, however, and address my responses to the attacker. I most certainly have not called you any of the things you mention, so there was no need to be so dismissive about my comment.

IMO, if we want to see this done properly, we need less blaming and scaremongering, and a few more grown up attitudes.
Including not insinuating that people who disagree are childish? What I think we need is more answers from those who want sex to be abolished in favour of so-called 'gender'. instead we get evasions and insults.

We segregate by sex in some places, if people think that is the same as racial segregation, I have no idea what to say to them

volver sex offenders ARE bad guys.
Why would anyone vote against restricting the ability of male sex offenders to be in women's single-sex spaces?
Other than the one suggested by Equality Network, of saving time.

"No to self ID" isn't exactly nuanced, is it?

That's because ScotGov has made clear that its GRR legislation is intended to be as nuanced as a sledgehammer.

I apply exactly the same views to all men in womens spaces, it has zero to do with them being trans. If men with ginger hair were currently campaigning to access womens spaces I would be saying exactly the same.

Volver what rights do you think the people objecting want to deny to trans people?