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

FarNorth

Who has been denigrating or/and quoting Hitler?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIfvRnpcuug

Why not just answer questions, then?

Who has been denigrating or/and quoting Hitler?

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.

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?

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.

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

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

Scotland does.

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/

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

I won't be answering.

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 ?

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.

Thank you for posting the article from the policy analysis group FarNorth. Having read it, I have this to say.

The article and the observations in it seem to amount to an analysis of how difficult it would be for E&W to handle many applications from people in Scotland who would have been granted new GRCs under the new law. My response to that is... well... tough. Just because the laws of one country make it hard for another, that is not a reason for the first country not to implement any laws which are within its competence. If we want to have a discussion about whether Scotland is a separate country within a union, I suspect that calls for a whole new thread.

So, two more observations; if E&W want to block the law because it would make their lives difficult, I don't believe that is a valid reason. If they want to block the law because they don't agree with it, then that is even less of a reason and implies that the Scottish Parliament has to kow tow to Westminster.

In addition, I would just like to point out to the interested but uncommitted reader that any objection to the standard viewpoint as expressed on this threads descends into accusations like "Do you not want sex-segregated prisons at all?" or "Do you not agree that you should be able to demand single sex spaces"? I won't be answering that because its insulting and its inflammatory. Perhaps the reader on the fence will not fall for the scaremongering and provocative accusations.

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.

No-one is overseeing anything, of course.

Good point Doodledog.
We don't know how many years the courts and prisons have been falsely recording the sex of criminals.
It would take only a few 'transwoman' paedophiles to make a significant increase in the figures of those recorded as female, as the number was so low to start with.

Is a ‘female paedophile’ someone with ovaries or other female organs, or someone who says they are a woman? Is everyone using the same definition so that reports can be compared? Who (if anyone) is overseeing the ethics committees who have input into the reports that find their way onto Google searches to ensure comparability?

This mangling of the language so that nobody knows what is meant, and comparisons are difficult or impossible to make is one of the things I find scary about the changes brought about by the trans movement.

An informative article about the issuing of a UK GRC to people who already have a GRC from another country.

"Given the small numbers of overseas cases in total, the need to update the list due to any concern about impacts on the ground was obviously limited. The practical impact of the failure to update means that since 2009 somewhere between 0 and fewer than 216 people in total have obtained a UK GRC, even though they would not have qualified for one under the normal UK arrangements.

Scotland presents a very different case. Scottish Ministers anticipate they will issue hundreds of GRCs every year. Many of those will be people who will need and want UK-wide recognition."

murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2022/12/10/at-least-as-rigorous-does-the-overseas-track-imply-anything-about-the-propsects-for-uk-recognition-of-scottish-gender-recognition-certificates/

I misunderstood your charming scenario of you and I sailing into the sunset volver.
I would still have plenty of concerns about Scotland, even if that happened.
As that isn't happening any time soon, tho, we have to liaise with the rest of the UK and it's reasonable for residents there to also be concerned.

Do you think we shouldn't have sex-segregated prisons at all volver?

How about sex-segregated hospital wards, or recipients of care being able to specify they don't want opposite-sex carers?

Yes I know they exist. No nothing will change my mind about the need for the sex segregation of services as detailed in the equality act. I have no idea what difference it would be for a Male paedophile to be in a womans prison as it would be for a Male paedophile who identifies as a woman to be in a womans prison.

I googled "female paedophiles" but I decline to post the link that came up.

We have female paedophiles in society and we deal with them. (4% female incidentally, not 1%, if your google works like mine.)

But as I said, nothing I say will change your mind.

One of the laws that protect vulnerable people is the ability for some services to segregate by sex.

Currently the figures for the sexual abuse of children is 99 % Male. Either we need sex segregated prisons or we dont.

We means "us". You and me. If we sail off into the sunset then you don't have to worry about how the Scottish law will affect the rUK law.

No answer yet about how rUK deals with people from other countries who have self ID, I see.

Anyway, let's take one example of what Oreo has posted.

A convicted paedophile could decide to identify as a woman, so gain entry to a woman only prison. What about the women paedophiles that already exist that go to prison. How do they get dealt with?

Well, let's do that then.

We have laws already. Let's use them instead of hypothesising if this happens, and if that happens, then this might happen. Then what shall we do? Answer: Use the laws that already protect vulnerable people.

I'm not going to get into this circular argument again.

Because you volver quoted my post then said "Perhaps its best if we just sail off into the sunset then, and you won't have to worry about it any more."

Worries and concerns have already been stated numerous times .
If you haven't understood them, that could explain your casual attitude.

If you think Oreo has posted mis-information, please explain what is actually the case volver.

FarNorth

You assume I'm not in Scotland volver?
You'd be wrong, hence I am very worried about this.

No, I don't assume that.

Why would you say that? I've not said anything like that.

Why are you worried?