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

Allsorts

Sorry if I offended you Grannydarkhair, I know you and the majority of Scotland are on the side of justice. This horrible group have their own twisted agender, they are not bothered by the rights of women and their children. I hear them on here pushing for gender fluidity, you know it's not right but they have their own reasons and blow the rest.
In my opinion sex offenders have lost their rights to even vote they are the lowest form of life.
Fingers crossed all will be well.

You are being very offensive Allsorts.

What so you suppose those "reasons" are?

Allsorts

Just whose are the people who want this bill overturned. No right minded person thinks it's normal.,Scotand has lost the plot.

Allsorts Scotland has not lost the plot. But it appears you're being quite unkind lately, no real reason is there, for such?

Every reason to be offended by those not interested in the safety of women and children, they need the protection of the law, thinking otherwise is offensive. I don’t have to explain the reasons they are self evident.

You are quite correct, you don't have to explain your reasons for posting anything on here. So I'll just tell you this.

You telling people who don't agree with you on this topic that they are not interested in the safety of women and children is more than offensive, its hideous. You have no idea what I'm "interested in".

There is a lot to discuss about this bill, but as long as those who actually think bits of it might be a good idea are demonised and maligned this way, there is no way that you (plural) can take the high ground.

Last night on TV, I heard an opponent of this bill say that they were "not anti trans, that they have trans friends." Now change the word "trans" to Black, or Asian, or foreign, and see how it sounds. This is why some of us think the "GC" (or whatever you are called) are just a little bit off the mark with this one.

The race thing is a false equivalence. For one thing, race makes no difference to whether someone is male or female. For another, people of colour wanting access to 'white' facilities was never going to put white people at risk.

Also, it is perfectly possible to not be anti trans but also want to protect women against being forced to share intimate spaces with sex offenders. That seems self-evident to me.

Aye, whatever.

This is what google found first.

How this horrific violence came to take place traces back to a particularly destructive idea, one as old as the United States itself and rooted in the country’s white supremacy: that black men are a physical threat to white people. The narrative that black men are inherently violent and prone to rape white women, as Roof said during his rampage, has been prevalent for centuries. This idea has served as the primary justification for the need to oppress black people to protect the common — meaning white — good.

Bigots thought that black people were a threat to white people, that they were dangerous. That link with what is going on today is "self evident", whatever you say.

Were you there volver?

Only in the minds of those who think that black men are equivalent to convicted sex offenders. They really aren't.

I think that the constant reference to previous forms of prejudice as though it is the same as concern for women being in intimate spaces with sex offenders is offensive to the groups who were previously discriminated against, but as you seem disinclined to be civil, I'll just say 'yeah, whatever'.

Aveline

Were you there volver?

No I wasn't.

Doodledog

Only in the minds of those who think that black men are equivalent to convicted sex offenders. They really aren't.

I think that the constant reference to previous forms of prejudice as though it is the same as concern for women being in intimate spaces with sex offenders is offensive to the groups who were previously discriminated against, but as you seem disinclined to be civil, I'll just say 'yeah, whatever'.

There are most certainly aspects of this which need careful consideration, The access to single sex spaces, being able to specify that you want a "natal" woman to take care of personal needs etc. Those are issues that need to be addressed.

But is that what the "no to Self ID" protesters want? It seems not. "No to self ID" isn't exactly nuanced, is it?

To an interested external viewer, like me; It appears that the GC want to deny rights to trans people just in case some of them are bad guys. I'm sorry, but it does remind me of the blanket assumptions about people of colour, or even women. No concerns for the individuals, just for the amorphous mass that makes up "trans people". Deal with the individual problems, as they come. 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.

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.

IMO, if we want to see this done properly, we need less blaming and scaremongering, and a few more grown up attitudes.

Excellent posts @ 17.09 and 17.43 Doodledog.

No to self ID as outlined by this Reform bill has nothing to do with transphobia or any kind of phobia or discrimination.

Women are urged to keep themselves safe. Not to walk home at night alone. Not to take a taxi alone. Not to leave their drinks unattended and then go back to them. Not because all men are a potential risk but because just one, unknown to them might be.

Women who don't want a fully intact self identifying male in their changing rooms, toilets, women's refuge centres and hospital wards aren't anti trans, and don't think or believe that all trans women who haven't undergone total reassignment are a potential threat, but some maybe.

Who in their right mind, could possibly think it acceptable that a man, with a previous conviction for a sex crime, should be able to identify as a woman and access women's safe spaces.

Who in their right mind, could possibly think it acceptable that the victim of rape should have to face her attacker in court, and refer to him as she because he obtained a GRC before the case went to trial.

There's nothing scaremongering about this and I agree volver that if we want to see this done properly we need less blaming ........ and a few more grown up attitudes which I do not see in this reform Bill.

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

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.