|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Mon 16 Jan 20:11
Apparently the first time that Westminster has used the Section 35 order to bloc Scottish legislation.
Personally, I don`t care how someone wishes to live their life and believe firmly in "Live and Let Live". I would add that I think this is the majority attitude in Scotland, both among the public and politicians.
At the same time, I can`t be bothered with rabbid activists who simply don`t understand the legal complexities of such matters and legislation required to implement such change.
Joanna Cherry, who is someone I really respect in terms of both legal and political prowess, seems to feel that there are obvious conflicts in the law that need addressing. I have to admit I simply don't but the claims that she is transphobic as a number of said activists claim, particularly when one considers that she is herself a Lesbian.
Has anyone found a balanced source for all of the debate surrounding this that they would recommend?
Is there a genuine debate to be had here or is this simply another case of needless political interference from Westminster?
Post Edited (Mon 16 Jan 20:14)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 16 Jan 20:35
I am clearly no expert in law or policy. However, my understanding is the Gender Reform bill would result in a contradiction with UK-wide legislation. This can`t be allowed. Nothing to do with Westminster overpowering Holyrood, it`s just common sense.
I`ve no real issue with the gender reform bill other than it feels like a lot of time and effort is going into improving the lives of a tiny proportion of people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 16 Jan 22:07
That last post could have been written by a Daily Mail `reporter`. UK rules and minorities don`t matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Mon 16 Jan 22:18
Quote:
jake89, Mon 16 Jan 20:35
I am clearly no expert in law or policy. However, my understanding is the Gender Reform bill would result in a contradiction with UK-wide legislation. This can`t be allowed. Nothing to do with Westminster overpowering Holyrood, it`s just common sense.
I`ve no real issue with the gender reform bill other than it feels like a lot of time and effort is going into improving the lives of a tiny proportion of people.
It simply contradicts what Westminster think is correct. Scottish and English laws differ on many issues. This one just doesn`t suit Westminster
Laws that differ:
Drink driving limit.
Buying alcohol past 10pm.
You need to let someone use your toilet if they knock on your door.
No such thing as arson.
No such thing as manslaughter.
Shop opening times on Sundays.
There are probably more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 16 Jan 22:20
I think you`re misunderstanding, wee eck.
Two separate things:
1. If the passing of this bill contradicts a bill covering ALL of the UK then that can`t be passed as it would create a clear conflict.
2. I don`t understand why so much time and effort is going into improving the lives of a tiny proportion of people.
For point 2, I`m not suggesting we DON`T improve things for a small minority, I`m suggesting far too much time and effort is being spent on something that should be very straightforward.
This bill isn`t radical in the slightest but it needs to be reviewed in line with UK legislation. This isn`t anything new and the party proposing it should know this already.
The worst thing about all of this is the misreporting in the media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 16 Jan 22:27
Quote:
moviescot, Mon 16 Jan 22:18
Quote:
jake89, Mon 16 Jan 20:35
I am clearly no expert in law or policy. However, my understanding is the Gender Reform bill would result in a contradiction with UK-wide legislation. This can`t be allowed. Nothing to do with Westminster overpowering Holyrood, it`s just common sense.
I`ve no real issue with the gender reform bill other than it feels like a lot of time and effort is going into improving the lives of a tiny proportion of people.
It simply contradicts what Westminster think is correct. Scottish and English laws differ on many issues. This one just doesn`t suit Westminster
Laws that differ:
Drink driving limit.
Buying alcohol past 10pm.
You need to let someone use your toilet if they knock on your door.
No such thing as arson.
No such thing as manslaughter.
Shop opening times on Sundays.
There are probably more.
These aren`t relevant comparisons though. Using many of those examples would mean a trans woman in Scotland wouldn`t be recognised as a trans woman elsewhere in the UK. That would be no issue. We`re talking about Scottish legislation that would apply across the UK and create a contradiction.
What we need is the whole UK to align with the Scottish proposal OR it to be changed so the recognition is only in Scotland, which I doubt can happen as ID is handled on a UK basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Mon 16 Jan 22:29
If only I could have claimed to be a wifie 15 years ago I could have claimed my my old git pension 5 years earlier
Is it possible to back date it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 16 Jan 22:35
Aren`t pension ages now the same no matter your gender?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Mon 16 Jan 22:44
Quote:
Parboiled, Mon 16 Jan 22:29
If only I could have claimed to be a wifie 15 years ago I could have claimed my my old git pension 5 years earlier
Is it possible to back date it?
You missed that bus a long time ago, just look at the WASPI campaign!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Mon 16 Jan 22:46
They weren`t 15 years ago...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 16 Jan 23:02
Under UK legislation, you wouldn`t be considered a woman in terms of your pension unless you`d lived as a woman for at least two years AND had gender reassignment surgery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 16 Jan 23:18
For someone who admits to being no expert in law you seem to be pretty sure of the position. I:ve just listened to two law lecturers based in Scotland discussing it and they couldn`t agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Tue 17 Jan 01:15
I think there are two separate issues here:
The first is whether the GRR Bill is bad law, in particular whether the safeguards it contains are inadequate to prevent the new freedoms introduced being abused by those of malevolent intent, to the detriment of others.
Opinion is divided on the matter.
The second is whether its enactment would bring Scots Law into conflict with reserved UK law, in particular equalities legislation. Opinion appears to be divided here too.
(And of course, there is the political dimension - why is this being pushed in the face of public opinion, are people looking for a fight, does anyone actually know what they are talking about anyway...)
Of course, it is common for parliamentarians to have the issue of whether to vote for a bill they largely agree with, but where there are a few things with which they disagree. Often politics or parliamentary arithmetic come into play – one party will make a virtue outing of opposing a bill even though they agree with most of it, knowing that it is going to pass anyway.
For a lay person, even a legislator, I imagine the issues here are complex and legal advice will have been sought. I don’t know how this works in theory or in practice. Presumably the proposer of the legislation takes advice from Parliamentary (or Government?) lawyers that what they propose is lawful. Can other parliamentarians rely on this advice, or can they (must they?) get their own advice, which may differ? (This is different from courts trying to interpret the meaning or intent of badly drafted law once it has been enacted).
I have only read a very little of the GRR bill and of the legislation which it amends. I would be surprised if many people had read it all.
To answer the original question, yes, I think there is a debate to be had. If not more than one. I haven’t seen a useful, unbiased summary, although I’m led to believe that some of the Trade Unions have produced worthwhile documentation (not that I could find a copy in the place to which I was directed).
Regarding State Pensions, obviously these have been equalised, but I note that the Government has issued guidance for transgender women born between 31 October 1953 and 6 November 1953 as they may be entitled to backdated pension. I imagine this reflects the interaction between the date of a court judgement and the ongoing equalisation process. Given the 2021 Census suggests that 0.01% people are transwomen then this guidance can only apply to a couple of people at most, I would have thought, but it’s good to know someone has thought about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 17 Jan 07:54
Quote:
wee eck, Mon 16 Jan 23:18
For someone who admits to being no expert in law you seem to be pretty sure of the position. I:ve just listened to two law lecturers based in Scotland discussing it and they couldn`t agree.
All I`ve stated is basic common sense and information easily accessed around pensions on the DWP website...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Tue 17 Jan 08:07
Sounds like one of the sticking points is Westminster believes 16 is too young to make a decision like this. That`s possibly a fair comment, although even if they get the Scottish Government to change this to 18, then fairly soon the 16 year olds will be saying they identify as being 18
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 17 Jan 10:09
I`d consider 16 potentially too young but isn`t that the point where there can be no parental intervention in medical treatment?
I`m going to take back something I said about time wasted. From what I now understand, the bill WAS shown to Westminster as it developed so it sounds like they are rightly surprised. It still sounds like the right decision, but why didn`t Westminster intervene sooner?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 17 Jan 11:03
This is probably a bit of a political masterstroke by the Conservative government.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 17 Jan 11:11
It may be viewed as popular amongst the Sun readers in England, but all it achieves in Scotland is highlighting that Holyrood is clearly not the most powerful devolved government in the world. The objection only really appeals to the people in Scotland who have union flags or Rangers badges in their profiles. They would never vote SNP, Alba or Green anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Tue 17 Jan 12:21
Flags and wee badges are very much in vogue with the minority who vote for Indy parties.
There are even a couple of houses not far from me with Saltire curtains. Goes with the utter middens of their front gardens
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 17 Jan 13:39
Quote:
Parboiled, Tue 17 Jan 12:21
Flags and wee badges are very much in vogue with the minority who vote for Indy parties.
There are even a couple of houses not far from me with Saltire curtains. Goes with the utter middens of their front gardens
I`ve got the unionists near me. Even got a flag pole to fly their union flag from.
I`ve no issue with people flying flags but I don`t really understand the concept. If you live in Scotland then it`s safe to assume the cast majority are Scottish whether they call themselves that or not. I could understand a flag from.another country as then I`d be like "Ah, they`re from Poland.".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Tue 17 Jan 22:53
Alistair Jack????
What a t*sser!
And Northern Ireland has the changed legislation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Wed 18 Jan 17:25
Labour Party tying themselves in knots over this one, anybody seen Sarwar?
Thornberry doesn`t know you can marry and vote at 16yrs of age in Scotland!
Post Edited (Wed 18 Jan 17:27)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 18 Jan 20:45
Thornbury at least seems to understand how disgraceful the Westminster "debate" was yesterday. It was absolutely disgraceful how MPs were permitted to trot out blatant mistruths about this bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Thu 19 Jan 12:57
Genuinely missed everything on the debate - do you mind sharing the mistruths please? Not trying to catch you out or anything like that - genuinely missed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Thu 19 Jan 13:21
The main mistruth I see bandied around is that this bill adds rights which didn`t previously exist. My understanding of the bill is that it makes it easier for folk to access already existing rights.
The other one is that folk have to simply declare their new gender for it to be certified by the state. That`s not true.
Or that it somehow gives "men" access to safe spaces for women. Again, no new rights are being given. Folk who could not access these services before the bill are not now able to access them.
Then there`s the general mistruth that this bill would make it easier for males to access female bathrooms. Do folk think there is currently a guard posted at every female toilet door and thus bill would ban them?
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Thu 19 Jan 13:32
The sex offenders healthy regard for signage is well known and will obviously stop access 🙈
Cheers for the above - ties in broadly with my own thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dafc
Date: Thu 19 Jan 18:26
It was only relatively recently that the same SNP issued guidance regards under 25s and prison. ‘The council said its decision was based on scientific evidence that the brain is not fully developed below that age’
So if under 25s brains aren’t developed fully regards to making criminal decisions then surely the same has to apply for anyone making this sort of judgement or any sort of judgement for that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 19 Jan 19:12
Quote:
londonparsfan, Thu 19 Jan 12:57
Genuinely missed everything on the debate - do you mind sharing the mistruths please? Not trying to catch you out or anything like that - genuinely missed it.
Wotsit has covered it really. The big thing was this suggestion that people can just be like "I`m a woman today" and walk into the women`s changing rooms with no challenge.
So two main mistruths
1. People stating it makes places like toilets and changing rooms unsafe (specifically to women)
2. The subtle suggestion that all trans women (nothing said about trans men) are sex offenders.
Things like men walking into women`s toilets to abuse women sadly happen regardless of the gender recognition bill.
There was also repeated claims of it conflicting with the equalities act but I don`t think anyone actually gave an example of how.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 19 Jan 19:15
Quote:
dafc, Thu 19 Jan 18:26
It was only relatively recently that the same SNP issued guidance regards under 25s and prison. ‘The council said its decision was based on scientific evidence that the brain is not fully developed below that age’
So if under 25s brains aren’t developed fully regards to making criminal decisions then surely the same has to apply for anyone making this sort of judgement or any sort of judgement for that matter.
Wasn`t this more that under-25s are potentially a bit thick? Recent example could be the lad who got done for nicking catalytic converters at the park and ride to help out a pal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 20 Jan 05:08
I suppose if someone spent months openly "living as a criminal" before committing their crime then there would be some sort of comparison between changing gender and going to prison, but I can`t imagine that many people do that?
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 20 Jan 12:04
It`s a classic "yeah, but what if..." followed by something that could already happen but doesn`t.
What`s quite offensive is the assumption that trans women (no-one seems to care about trans men) are sex offenders or criminals. ANYONE in society can be a sex offender or criminal.
People seem to have latched on arguments by the likes of JK Rowling and Graham Linehan with this bill and that`s just wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Fri 20 Jan 13:36
Viceroy Jack decides he isn`t going to appear in front of a committee in Holyrood to try and resolve the issues!🤔🙈🤥
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 20 Jan 14:19
From the Guardian -
`Also on Thursday, Jack told Holyrood’s equalities committee, which scrutinised the gender bill last year, that he was unable to attend its meeting next Tuesday. He suggested Kemi Badenoch, the UK equalities minister, was the more appropriate minister to invite and the committee has done so.
Immediately after, Holyrood’s constitution committee wrote to Jack, asking him to give evidence on 26 January at a session about the constitutional implications of the section 35 order.`
Maybe he`s worried the Scottish electorate might get to know who he is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 23 Jan 14:39
Apparently Badenoch has also turned down an invitation to attend the Holyrood equalities committee despite Jack saying she was the more appropriate minister to attend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 23 Jan 21:26
It`s genuinely intriguing. Jack can`t advise what the issues are and the person he states should be consulted refuses to be consulted.
It`s almost as though the bill is perfectly fine.
I`m still working out who these men are who are so committed to abusing women that they`ll spend 3-6 months living their lives as a woman. They`ve got more dedication than Roy Castle!
Post Edited (Mon 23 Jan 21:26)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Mon 23 Jan 23:50
Jake, in the second post of this thread you said; "However, my understanding is the Gender Reform bill would result in a contradiction with UK-wide legislation. This can`t be allowed. Nothing to do with Westminster overpowering Holyrood, it`s just common sense."
Now you`re saying; "It`s almost as though the bill is perfectly fine."
Nothing wrong with changing your mind if you`ve been able to do a bit more to increase your understanding of the bill since last week I was just curious as to what brought about the volte face.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 24 Jan 07:41
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Mon 23 Jan 23:50
Jake, in the second post of this thread you said; "However, my understanding is the Gender Reform bill would result in a contradiction with UK-wide legislation. This can`t be allowed. Nothing to do with Westminster overpowering Holyrood, it`s just common sense."
Now you`re saying; "It`s almost as though the bill is perfectly fine."
Nothing wrong with changing your mind if you`ve been able to do a bit more to increase your understanding of the bill since last week I was just curious as to what brought about the volte face.
So my understanding at the time was it contradicted UK legislation. However, since then I`ve seen no real evidence of this. Usually you would expect details of the issues so these could be responded to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 24 Jan 11:23
This isn`t as clear-cut an issue as some commentators suggest. This is from today`s Guardian newsfeed :-
`And while the focus this morning has been on Caroline Nokes’s views on Zahawi, she was also asked on BBC Radio Scotland about her views on the gender recognition bill, given her role as chair of Westminster’s women and equalities committee.
She pointed out that the recommendations made by that committee in 2021 into gender recognition reform were not that different from the Scottish bill, aside from the drop in age of application, and that it was “worthwhile looking at ways in which the Westminster government could make the whole gender recognition certificate process simpler, more straightforward”.
She added that a section 35 order “should not have been done” and that there was “room for compromise” between both governments.`
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 26 Jan 18:46
Big stink kicked up about the rapist sent to Cornton Vale for processing. Cries of "they said this wouldn`t happen". Prisoner has now been transferred to a male prison following processing. Sudden silence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Thu 26 Jan 20:47
Hopefully he`ll / she`ll get the wig and makeup 💄 off before he gets to his new home.
Might also be wise to change his/her name back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Fri 27 Jan 09:04
Shame the same scenario happened in an English prison last year, with more serious consequences!
Funny how there`s no mention of that?🤔😲
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 27 Jan 12:39
Quote:
LochgellyAlbert, Fri 27 Jan 09:04
Shame the same scenario happened in an English prison last year, with more serious consequences!
Funny how there`s no mention of that?🤔😲
It`s all very petty and embarrassing given the importance of the subject matter. What people seem to miss is that the SPS has a duty of care over inmates. Someone being trans is just one characteristic that will impact on what might happen during their stay at his majesty`s pleasure. It all gets assessed before inmates are placed and monitored. What is just a standard process has become a mask for people expressing some rather bigoted views IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: buffy
Date: Fri 27 Jan 13:03
Exactly Jake, plus I’d hazard a guess at folk who are making a noise about corntonvale inmates have never considered them before the trans argument.
”Buffy’s Buns are the finest in Fife”, J. Spence 2019”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 27 Jan 13:41
Are we saying, and I`m genuinely asking, that the process was taking place before this became a media story and that she was always going to be moved to a male prison?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Fri 27 Jan 14:33
Chief Mammy on radio this morning accusing opponents to her bill of using womens rights as a cloak for being transphobic, homophobiic and racist.
Opponents include some of her own colleagues and no doubt her “wee free” Finance Secretary.
When is she going to kick them out.?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 27 Jan 14:46
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Fri 27 Jan 13:41
Are we saying, and I`m genuinely asking, that the process was taking place before this became a media story and that she was always going to be moved to a male prison?
It depends on the risk assessment but that process hasn`t changed. I don`t know the ins and outs of this but, based solely on what out there in the press, this person would likely be a risk to female prisoners but would be at risk from male prisoners. I doubt the details will be released, but I`d expect they`ll be placed in a special unit within a male prison.
The media (and our politicians) seem to think these types of issues are new.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Fri 27 Jan 15:36
Chain of events-
Justice Secretary says it’s up to the Prison Service
They put “her” into Corton Vale
Ex Governor of Cornton Vale said she would have resigned if that had happened on her watch.
Much media criticism and outrage
Next day Sturgeon says the prisoner will never ever serve sentence in womens prison.
Prisoner moved elsewhere.
I predict this prisoner will sue for sexual discrimination and demand to be housed with her fellow females rather than the felons who are fellas ,,,
And the fun won’t end there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 27 Jan 15:45
Its a mess
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 27 Jan 16:00
Quote:
Parboiled, Fri 27 Jan 15:36
Chain of events-
Justice Secretary says it’s up to the Prison Service
They put “her” into Corton Vale
Ex Governor of Cornton Vale said she would have resigned if that had happened on her watch.
Much media criticism and outrage
Next day Sturgeon says the prisoner will never ever serve sentence in womens prison.
Prisoner moved elsewhere.
I predict this prisoner will sue for sexual discrimination and demand to be housed with her fellow females rather than the felons who are fellas ,,,
And the fun won’t end there.
No, that`s the events as reported in the Daily Mail. Fixed it for you:
They put “her” into Corton Vale for processing
Ex Governor of Cornton Vale said she would have resigned if that had happened on her watch even though she housed trans women in Cornton Vale so...
Much media criticism and outrage about an existing procedure
Next day Sturgeon says the prisoner will never ever serve sentence in womens prison.
Prisoner moved elsewhere following a standard risk assessment carried out during processing
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Fri 27 Jan 16:05
A lot of the rhetoric reminds me about the sort of stuff I heard when I was younger about gay men...
I don`t believe I know any trans people, but I did know gay people who about 20 odd years ago were being horribly and unfairly portrayed as everything from sexual deviant, sleep with anyone and everyone all the time, kiddiefiddlers and calls that they shouldn`t be able to use the same facilities used by straight men etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 28 Jan 05:19
Quote:
DBP, Fri 27 Jan 16:05
A lot of the rhetoric reminds me about the sort of stuff I heard when I was younger about gay men...
I don`t believe I know any trans people, but I did know gay people who about 20 odd years ago were being horribly and unfairly portrayed as everything from sexual deviant, sleep with anyone and everyone all the time, kiddiefiddlers and calls that they shouldn`t be able to use the same facilities used by straight men etc
You might not remember this detail, but at the time there was a LERF movement - Lesbian Exclusionary Radical Feminism - which had a great deal in common with the modern TERF movement, including very familiar rhetoric around "safe spaces" such as claims that women who had experienced sexual violence would not wish to be accommodated alongside gay women who may prey on them, with some even, it was claimed, deliberately getting themselves placed into such accommodation for the purpose of committing sexual violence against already vulnerable women.
This rhetoric was obviously fear mongering homophobia to modern ears: can you imagine anybody suggesting today that a gay woman who had been raped by a man should be denied access to safe accommodation because she was gay?
It was motivated by a desire to demonise the gay community and delay their acceptance into mainstream society. It clearly wasn`t motivated by a desire to protect vulnerable women. Apart from anything else, if it were they wouldn`t have basically ignored the subject until it became a convenient stick to beat another massively marginalised minority looking for social acceptance.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
Post Edited (Sat 28 Jan 05:21)
|
|
|
|
|
|
